Don't worry I'm not going to try to preach to you, so please read the whole
message. I have a few legit questions that should be important as it actually
has an effect on our eternal destination. I know where my destination is
(Heaven) because of my choice of belief. Likewise you also have a choice. So
heres my questions.

1. How do you explain away the authenticity (accuracy) of the Bible? Side note:
Some of the best books to read about faith, christianity and the Bible are
written by documented athiests who originally set out to write a book proving
christianity a hoax. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell come to mind. If you use the
same three test rule (bibliographical test, internal evidence test, external
evidence test) to determine the authenticity of ancient literature, the Bible is
by far the most reliable book ever written.

2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?

3. How do you explain the empty tomb?

4. How do you explain the resurrection?

5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?

6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who witnessed the
risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)

7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After all there
were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they had him
killed.

I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder and a
short story.

Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever
hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these men alone!
Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human origin, it weill fail.
But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only
find yourselves fighting against God.

Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an elephant.
The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The second grabbed the
trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third grabbed the tusk and said
this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The truth is the truth regardless of
what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I
HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT DEPENDS ON IT.

I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also. PLEASE
don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I know of what I
speak and you won't change my thinking with it.

May God Bless

Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.

----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian about
Atheism


> 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?

I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably are
genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man named
Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.

>
> 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?

Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories in
an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in writing
or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent it.

>
> 4. How do you explain the resurrection?

Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the way
nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the various
myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and Apollonius.

>
> 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?

You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
specifically to Jesus Christ.

>
> 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who witnessed
> the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)

Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in history.

>
> 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After all
> there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they
> had him killed.

Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise Jesus
and his message.

Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you give
with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very few
people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind" people
out there.

Richard.

>
> I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder and
> a short story.
>
> Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever
> hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
> forgiven!"
>
> Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these men
> alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human origin,
> it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these
> men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
>
> Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
> elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
> second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
> grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The
> truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING
> ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT
> DEPENDS ON IT.
>
> I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
> PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I
> know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
>
> May God Bless
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Don't worry I'm not going to try to preach to you, so please read
> the whole message.

Would everything except the bible quotes do?  :-)

> I have a few legit questions that should be important as it
> actually has an effect on our eternal destination. I know where my
> destination is (Heaven) because of my choice of belief. Likewise
> you also have a choice. So heres my questions.

Any god that would send me to an eternal concentration camp for honestly picking
the wrong belief is not a god that is worthy of worship (nor one that could be
trusted to not send those who believe in it to the eternal concentration camp).

> 1. How do you explain away the authenticity (accuracy) of the
> Bible?

The bible is full of contradictions, of both itself and reality.

There is no need to explain the accuracy of an inaccurate book.

> Side note: Some of the best books to read about faith, christianity
> and the Bible are written by documented athiests who originally set
> out to write a book proving christianity a hoax. Lee Strobel and
> Josh McDowell come to mind.

Those books are generally accepted to be so full of logical fallacies as to be
worthless.

If you already believe and just want confirmation of your beliefs then those
books probably are pretty good, but if you want a good argument for belief then
they aren't such a good thing (and there is very serious doubt as to whether any
of them actually understood the arguments for there being no god).

> If you use the same three test rule (bibliographical test, internal
> evidence test, external evidence test) to determine the
> authenticity of ancient literature, the Bible is by far the most
> reliable book ever written.

A book which flat out contradicts modern science and much of history is not by
any means reliable, there are some good stories in the bible but it is not by
any means a science or history textbook.

> 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?

How do we know it even happened in the first place?

> 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?

What evidence other than the bible is there that there was even a tomb?

> 4. How do you explain the resurrection?

What evidence other than the bible is there for that?

> 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?

Writing the prophecy after it has been fulfilled is a good way to appear
accurate (and some prophecies are self-fulfilling as well).

> 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who
> witnessed the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)

If you make up a book of fiction you can have any characters life change for any
reason you want.

Besides, Christianity isn't the only religion on the planet, other religions
claim much the same thing.

> 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago?

Because it didn't even exist 2000 years ago (with the most likely birth date of
Jesus being around 4 BCE if he existed (which is unlikely) he'd have been only a
teenager then).

Most likely Christianity only appeared sometime after 70 CE based on other
myths.  The Jesus Christ character is likely to have been a combination of many
other messiah claimants (of which there were a great many at that time) and some
of the early Christians didn't even believe he really came to Earth (and that it
all took place in a spiritual realm).

> After all there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his
> message and they had him killed.

The bible says that but there is no actual evidence until generations after the
alleged birth of Christ.

> I know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.

In that case there may not be any point in arguing with you.

Wolfray,� If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible then you have
probably only dipped into the book and have not studied it. If you believe that
Jesus brought something new to man, then you have to� expect contradictions.�
The story of his telling the crowd that he without sin should throw the first
stone is a sensational contradiction to anything that went before it.� In fact
it is so much of a contradiction that few fundamentalist can integrate it into
their religion.� They much prefer the old testament god to the one that Jesus
presents to us.� The old testament god is modeled on some of the worst
characteristics of natural man, because natural man could comprehend no better.�
So we get a vindiction, angry, jealous, and remorseful god, attributes that do
not reflect the best in man's own nature, but his worse.� They reflect the
characteristics of the typical patriarch of their time, fathers who were
powerful and had to be
  appeased.� This god was talking to a nomadic people who did not have jails and
so the punishments were often extreme, such as killing anyone who was a
nuisance, like disobedient children, or those who commited sex acts that did not
contribute to the survival of the tribe.� Forgiveness meant constantly
confronting the same problem over and over again so it was much easier to
eliminate the problem once and for all.� A Machavellian god was essential.� How
else can you condone the savagery of their need to eliminate men, women and
children of the cities that they conquerored?� It is hard to maintain a specific
doctrine or creed if there is competition, so it is best to eliminate it.��
Communism and Nazism found the same truth important for their success.� Heresy
has to be one of the most feared crimes in any society that wants to preserve
itself in one image and one image alone.� There is nothing in the New Testament
that condones the acts of the
  inquisition, but the old testament is quite conducive to such a concept.

the concept of hell is so much more important to Jesus because it places the
responsibility on god to judge others and not on man.� The apparent justice of
heaven and hell deprive man of the right to act in god's stead.� This does not
undermine the state's right to punish offenders but it does undermine the right
of sinners to judge and punish�those they consider sinners because as Jesus tell
us, we are all sinners, no�one morally superior to any other.� Jesus is quite
consistent when he sends render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .� There
is a role for the�state to punish anyone who harms others, but not to punish
what some consider to be sinners whether their acts harm anyone else.

Christians are out and out human beings with�all of our frailities and
consequently constantly attribute to Christ what they find in Moses, Joshua, and
many others.� There is a compelling need to�feel superior to others�and to
strong arm others into our own image of what is moral.��Mercy is greatly
misunderstood by those who prefer the god of the old testament to the god of the
new.� Jesus was preaching a message that is profoundly difficult for man to
accept and so he does not.

Look at yourself.� See how confident you are that you know the truth even though
your knowledge of the Bible is quite superficial. You are not even aware of the
numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible.� You have protected
yourself from anything that contradicts what you want to believe.� And anyone
should well want to do who has been trained by a book that makes heresy the
greatest sin of all.� Thinking, and thinking the wrong thing is the most
dangerous thing any believer�can do and so is discouraged as often and as
forceable as it can be.� This explains why you�know so little about atheists
and�about their reasonable�objections to the Bible.� You have been trained to
believe only one thing and to believe that without question, no matter how
absurd it can be at times.

You are now venturing into very dangerous waters because you�are too confident.�
If you continue, you will learns things that make everything you know dubious
and troublesome.� So like the gates of hell, the gates to understanding others
should read, Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.� Education is so much
different than indoctrination.� Non-believers are willing to use reason and
logic, which believers�have to exhault faith, and faith as many faithful have
praised to be better the more�ridiculous are the things you believe.� It is easy
to believe the reasonable so one�can hardly call it faith.� But believing
anything that defies reason is the measure of a great faith.�




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Richard for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the way you responded.
Most of the time it is hateful, angry, mocking answers, which does not endear me
to this type of discussion.

I'm going to respond to your answers and if you feel so inclined you can do
likewise. I could probably write a book.

EMPTY TOMB
-There were witnesses. Your dismissing them because of your prejudice. You have
no right to discount a christian witness to an event or happening, anymore than
I haver a right to dismiss an athiest's witness to an event or happening.
-The tomb was sealed to ensure that His followers would not try to steal the
body.
-There were Roman guards in place to ensure that the tomb was not tampered with.
-The body had been wrapped in linens and spices and they were still in place
when the tomb was discovered empty.
-No one disputed that the tomb was empty, only what happened to the body.

RESURRECTION
-No witnesses? There are at least 15 appearances listed in the Bible of the
Risen Lord to over 500 people. (I guess there all smoking crack?)
-You talk of natural law. Since you don't know and understand God then you have
a limited ability to understand what he can do. God created the universe, we
can't put him in our little box of limited understanding. He made natural law,
so He can do anything (ie. raise people from the dead, perform miracles) as
witnessed by hundreds if not thousands who saw Jesus (God) raise people from the
dead and perform miracles.
-We have to be able to agree on one thing. The only possible way for there to be
a resurrection is that there has to be a God. So Jesus is either a liar or the
Risen Lord. If it is a hoax how could it stand up to so much scrutiny over 2000
years and yet survive.
FULFILLED PROPHECY - Just 2 quick examples. I could give hundreds.
-Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth. Written 700 years before it happened!!
-Isaiah 9:6,7 Coming Messiah. Again 700 years prior. Liar or prophet?

CHANGED LIVES
-I'm talking about those in the Bible. Dicisples from cowardly wimps to
martyr's. Paul from murdering christians to the greatest saint in the new
testament. Question - would you die for your beliefs?

So you admit it isn't a hoax. That's a start. In reality, this is very serious
stuff. Whether I'm right or you are right, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO SEEK
THE TRUTH. Being wrong for eternity is not a good thing. Thanks again for your
answers.

RAY
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wolfray@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian about
> Atheism
>
>
> > 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?
>
> I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably are
> genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man named
> Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.
>
> >
> > 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?
>
> Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories in
> an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in writing
> or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent it.
>
> >
> > 4. How do you explain the resurrection?
>
> Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
> external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the way
> nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the various
> myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and Apollonius.
>
> >
> > 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?
>
> You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
> specifically to Jesus Christ.
>
> >
> > 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who witnessed
> > the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)
>
> Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
> source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
> history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in history.
>
> >
> > 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After all
> > there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they
> > had him killed.
>
> Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise Jesus
> and his message.
>
> Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you give
> with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very few
> people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind" people
> out there.
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> > I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder and
> > a short story.
> >
> > Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever
> > hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
> > forgiven!"
> >
> > Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these men
> > alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human origin,
> > it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these
> > men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
> >
> > Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
> > elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
> > second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
> > grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The
> > truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING
> > ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT
> > DEPENDS ON IT.
> >
> > I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
> > PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I
> > know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
> >
> > May God Bless
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

You might have better luck using a source outside of the bible.  Many dispute
the bible's truth, and will not take "but the bible says so!" as a valid
argument.  Also - "you're" = "you are", "your" = "your".  "There" = "there",
"they're" = "they are".
Personally, I think the most important thing is to seek knowledge.  Your truth
is not my truth is not Bestonnet's truth is not a Buddhist's truth is not a
Muslim's truth is not a ... etc.  Just because you say it is the truth, doesn't
actually make it the truth.

Devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the way you responded.
Most of the time it is hateful, angry, mocking answers, which does not endear me
to this type of discussion.
>
> I'm going to respond to your answers and if you feel so inclined you can do
likewise. I could probably write a book.
>
> EMPTY TOMB
> -There were witnesses. Your dismissing them because of your prejudice. You
have no right to discount a christian witness to an event or happening, anymore
than I haver a right to dismiss an athiest's witness to an event or happening.
> -The tomb was sealed to ensure that His followers would not try to steal the
body.
> -There were Roman guards in place to ensure that the tomb was not tampered
with.
> -The body had been wrapped in linens and spices and they were still in place
when the tomb was discovered empty.
> -No one disputed that the tomb was empty, only what happened to the body.
>
> RESURRECTION
> -No witnesses? There are at least 15 appearances listed in the Bible of the
Risen Lord to over 500 people. (I guess there all smoking crack?)
> -You talk of natural law. Since you don't know and understand God then you
have a limited ability to understand what he can do. God created the universe,
we can't put him in our little box of limited understanding. He made natural
law, so He can do anything (ie. raise people from the dead, perform miracles) as
witnessed by hundreds if not thousands who saw Jesus (God) raise people from the
dead and perform miracles.
> -We have to be able to agree on one thing. The only possible way for there to
be a resurrection is that there has to be a God. So Jesus is either a liar or
the Risen Lord. If it is a hoax how could it stand up to so much scrutiny over
2000 years and yet survive.
> FULFILLED PROPHECY - Just 2 quick examples. I could give hundreds.
> -Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth. Written 700 years before it happened!!
> -Isaiah 9:6,7 Coming Messiah. Again 700 years prior. Liar or prophet?
>
> CHANGED LIVES
> -I'm talking about those in the Bible. Dicisples from cowardly wimps to
martyr's. Paul from murdering christians to the greatest saint in the new
testament. Question - would you die for your beliefs?
>
> So you admit it isn't a hoax. That's a start. In reality, this is very serious
stuff. Whether I'm right or you are right, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO SEEK
THE TRUTH. Being wrong for eternity is not a good thing. Thanks again for your
answers.
>
> RAY
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
> >
> > Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <wolfray@>
> > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
> > Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian about
> > Atheism
> >
> >
> > > 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?
> >
> > I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably are
> > genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man named
> > Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.
> >
> > >
> > > 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?
> >
> > Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories in
> > an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in writing
> > or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent it.
> >
> > >
> > > 4. How do you explain the resurrection?
> >
> > Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
> > external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the way
> > nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the various
> > myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and Apollonius.
> >
> > >
> > > 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?
> >
> > You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
> > specifically to Jesus Christ.
> >
> > >
> > > 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who witnessed
> > > the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)
> >
> > Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
> > source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
> > history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in history.
> >
> > >
> > > 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After all
> > > there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they
> > > had him killed.
> >
> > Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise Jesus
> > and his message.
> >
> > Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you give
> > with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very few
> > people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind" people
> > out there.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > >
> > > I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder and
> > > a short story.
> > >
> > > Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever
> > > hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
> > > forgiven!"
> > >
> > > Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these men
> > > alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human origin,
> > > it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these
> > > men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
> > >
> > > Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
> > > elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
> > > second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
> > > grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The
> > > truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING
> > > ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT
> > > DEPENDS ON IT.
> > >
> > > I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
> > > PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I
> > > know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
> > >
> > > May God Bless
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:28 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Questions from a God fearing christian
about Atheism


> Thanks Richard for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the way you
> responded. Most of the time it is hateful, angry, mocking answers, which
> does not endear me to this type of discussion.
>
> I'm going to respond to your answers and if you feel so inclined you can
> do likewise. I could probably write a book.

R:  Heaven forbid.

>
> EMPTY TOMB
> -There were witnesses. Your dismissing them because of your prejudice. You
> have no right to discount a christian witness to an event or happening,
> anymore than I haver a right to dismiss an athiest's witness to an event
> or happening.
> -The tomb was sealed to ensure that His followers would not try to steal
> the body.
> -There were Roman guards in place to ensure that the tomb was not tampered
> with.
> -The body had been wrapped in linens and spices and they were still in
> place when the tomb was discovered empty.
> -No one disputed that the tomb was empty, only what happened to the body.

R:  So-called witnesses in obvious religious polemic and from
psychologically oriented illusions are not witnesses sufficient for history.
You believe them because of YOUR prejudice. Witness evidence must be judged
by rules of history, not on their religion or because of their religion.
Nothing is discounted a priori.  History always admits of possibility.
Probability is what is required.

But let's look:  How do we know "the tomb was sealed"?  We don't unless we
accept the writing of a polemical author a generation after the supposed
fact based on some tradition passed along, and that isn't sufficient for
history.  We don't even know if there was a tomb.  Ordinarily crucified
individuals were left to rot or placed into a dump.  A few were placed in
tombs, but there is no sufficient evidence this one was.  Roman guards offer
no support; some say they may have gone asleep; nevertheless, it's only a
report based on a tradition.

Your other supposed evidences likewise are insufficient on the same basis.
Overall, would you say a witness to a UFO landing, even currently rather
than just a tradition report a generation later, justifies its truth as
historical evidence?  Wouldn't it be necessary for some disinterested people
to come on the scene and take a look, then go up to it and examine it and
those little green men coming out?

Your biggest problem is establishing the historical reliability of the Bible
as an ONLY witness to history. And that's a BIG 'un.  The "empty tomb" is a
story either that was transmitted through time, or made up by a community
represented by the author, and that's all.

>
> RESURRECTION
> -No witnesses? There are at least 15 appearances listed in the Bible of
> the Risen Lord to over 500 people. (I guess there all smoking crack?)

R:  Yes, smoking cannabas. Seriously, such psychological illusions were very
common during that time, still are somewhat.  You should be aware of the
many explanations of this! Not to mention these apparitions also were
stories transmitted at least a generation before they are reported in the
one and only one source, the Bible.  500 people is about as much
exaggeration as two million people in the renouned "Exodus."  In short,
there is no historical reliability there, not to mention violation of
natural laws.


> -You talk of natural law. Since you don't know and understand God then you
> have a limited ability to understand what he can do. God created the
> universe, we can't put him in our little box of limited understanding. He
> made natural law, so He can do anything (ie. raise people from the dead,
> perform miracles) as witnessed by hundreds if not thousands who saw Jesus
> (God) raise people from the dead and perform miracles.

R:  So now you have departed from your stated purpose of investigating
history, to your worldview, the paradigm that involves supposed knowledge
exactly the opposite of history.  So here in midstream you have completely
changed your purpose, right?

> -We have to be able to agree on one thing. The only possible way for there
> to be a resurrection is that there has to be a God. So Jesus is either a
> liar or the Risen Lord. If it is a hoax how could it stand up to so much
> scrutiny over 2000 years and yet survive.

R:  No.  Theoretically any natural law could be violated, in which case
scientists would have to revise their understandings and descriptions of
such laws.  The natural laws don't exist; they are only human means of
understanding the persistent ways nature operates. So a deity would not be
necessary for there to be a "human resurrection", as differentiated from
rescusitation, i.e. really dead for a period of time, determined by the
techniques of science. It would make no difference whether a deity is
involved.

You haven't even yet established historically there was a Jesus.  But if
there was, and if Jesus believed he would be resurrected, and he wasn't,
that wouldn't mean he was lying; rather he was just deluded.  After the
supposed resurrection, that wasn't Jesus, right.  The "Risen Lord" would
have been of a different bodily form, like a ghost who could pass through
walls and a closed door.

It isn't a hoax, rather just one of many sincere religious "sightings" and
beliefs.  The time they last is irrelevant.  However, you are wrong that it
has stood up to "so much scrutiny", since is it roundly dismissed by the
vast majority of scientists, and more people than the few who believe it;
even back at the time it was reported in the gospels, only a very few people
out of the other thousands believe it. The target of the stories was the
Judeans of the time, and how many of them believed it?  And even those who
believe it don't for historical reliability, but rather "on faith," just as
you do.  Already you have abandoned your quest for history!


> FULFILLED PROPHECY - Just 2 quick examples. I could give hundreds.
> -Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth. Written 700 years before it happened!!
> -Isaiah 9:6,7 Coming Messiah. Again 700 years prior. Liar or prophet?

R:  Hundred aren't necessary.  Isaiah reports a "young woman" (ha-almah in
Hebrew), not a virgin, and the subject had nothing at all to do with the
birth stories of Jesus.  Again, there is no connection in the scripture
between Isaiah's story and the NT birth stories, except the appropriation of
it in the said Jesus stories, based on reinterpretation, called pesher or
midrash.  And the same for all of Isaiah. A messiah coming, yes.  Jesus, no.
That is, for the Jews, whom all this is about.  Jesus did not meet the Jew's
requirements for a messiah, and they roundly rejected it, right?  Isaiah as
prophet stands, not a liar.

>
> CHANGED LIVES
> -I'm talking about those in the Bible. Dicisples from cowardly wimps to
> martyr's. Paul from murdering christians to the greatest saint in the new
> testament. Question - would you die for your beliefs?

R:  Think of the many changes lives, from religions throughout history, from
national passion, from all sorts of beliefs. Or just self-willed, or from
some very impressionable event in someone's history, and martyrdom is
ubiquitous in all history, even current times.  Of course still, all you
have are polemic writings.  Would you die for your so strong belief?

>
> So you admit it isn't a hoax. That's a start. In reality, this is very
> serious stuff. Whether I'm right or you are right, the MOST IMPORTANT
> THING IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH. Being wrong for eternity is not a good thing.
> Thanks again for your answers.

R:  Never did I believe "generally" the Biblical stories were meant for the
purpose of hoax.  But some early Church Fathers told the people they should
believe whether or not they are true.  I realize you are worried about your
eternity.  But I'm not.

So you have abandoned your quest for history.  Are you ready to admit that??

Richard.

>
> RAY
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>>
>> Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <wolfray@...>
>> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
>> Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian about
>> Atheism
>>
>>
>> > 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?
>>
>> I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably are
>> genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man named
>> Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.
>>
>> >
>> > 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?
>>
>> Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories
>> in
>> an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in
>> writing
>> or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent
>> it.
>>
>> >
>> > 4. How do you explain the resurrection?
>>
>> Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
>> external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the
>> way
>> nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the various
>> myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and
>> Apollonius.
>>
>> >
>> > 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?
>>
>> You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
>> specifically to Jesus Christ.
>>
>> >
>> > 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who
>> > witnessed
>> > the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)
>>
>> Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
>> source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
>> history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in
>> history.
>>
>> >
>> > 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After
>> > all
>> > there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they
>> > had him killed.
>>
>> Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise
>> Jesus
>> and his message.
>>
>> Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you
>> give
>> with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very
>> few
>> people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind"
>> people
>> out there.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> >
>> > I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder
>> > and
>> > a short story.
>> >
>> > Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and
>> > ever
>> > hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
>> > forgiven!"
>> >
>> > Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these
>> > men
>> > alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human
>> > origin,
>> > it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop
>> > these
>> > men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
>> >
>> > Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
>> > elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
>> > second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
>> > grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The
>> > truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE
>> > TALKING
>> > ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT
>> > DEPENDS ON IT.
>> >
>> > I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
>> > PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I
>> > know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
>> >
>> > May God Bless
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

There can't be a better source than the Bible. I don't know what type of
research you do, but the evidence that the bible is authentic is overwhelming.
The same criteria used to determine any historical document is used on the bible
as any other historical document and the evidence is overwhelming. Also there
has never been one archeological find to refute an event in the bible. It is
God's word. Truth is not relavant to what you believe. The truth is the truth.
The sun will rise in the morning. That's true. If your blind you may not believe
that there is a sun. Does that mean the blind man knows the truth.

You are exactly right in that the most important thing is to seek the truth. If
your looking for it through the prism of what man writes then you are not going
to find it. The history of man proves that. When have they ever got it right.

The difference between you and I is that I am saved and you are not. We're both
broken sinners who needs salvation. Where do you think you are going to spend
eternity.
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "devasma" <devasma@...> wrote:
>
> You might have better luck using a source outside of the bible.  Many dispute
the bible's truth, and will not take "but the bible says so!" as a valid
argument.  Also - "you're" = "you are", "your" = "your".  "There" = "there",
"they're" = "they are".
> Personally, I think the most important thing is to seek knowledge.  Your truth
is not my truth is not Bestonnet's truth is not a Buddhist's truth is not a
Muslim's truth is not a ... etc.  Just because you say it is the truth, doesn't
actually make it the truth.
>
> Devas
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@" <wolfray@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Richard for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the way you
responded. Most of the time it is hateful, angry, mocking answers, which does
not endear me to this type of discussion.
> >
> > I'm going to respond to your answers and if you feel so inclined you can do
likewise. I could probably write a book.
> >
> > EMPTY TOMB
> > -There were witnesses. Your dismissing them because of your prejudice. You
have no right to discount a christian witness to an event or happening, anymore
than I haver a right to dismiss an athiest's witness to an event or happening.
> > -The tomb was sealed to ensure that His followers would not try to steal the
body.
> > -There were Roman guards in place to ensure that the tomb was not tampered
with.
> > -The body had been wrapped in linens and spices and they were still in place
when the tomb was discovered empty.
> > -No one disputed that the tomb was empty, only what happened to the body.
> >
> > RESURRECTION
> > -No witnesses? There are at least 15 appearances listed in the Bible of the
Risen Lord to over 500 people. (I guess there all smoking crack?)
> > -You talk of natural law. Since you don't know and understand God then you
have a limited ability to understand what he can do. God created the universe,
we can't put him in our little box of limited understanding. He made natural
law, so He can do anything (ie. raise people from the dead, perform miracles) as
witnessed by hundreds if not thousands who saw Jesus (God) raise people from the
dead and perform miracles.
> > -We have to be able to agree on one thing. The only possible way for there
to be a resurrection is that there has to be a God. So Jesus is either a liar or
the Risen Lord. If it is a hoax how could it stand up to so much scrutiny over
2000 years and yet survive.
> > FULFILLED PROPHECY - Just 2 quick examples. I could give hundreds.
> > -Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth. Written 700 years before it happened!!
> > -Isaiah 9:6,7 Coming Messiah. Again 700 years prior. Liar or prophet?
> >
> > CHANGED LIVES
> > -I'm talking about those in the Bible. Dicisples from cowardly wimps to
martyr's. Paul from murdering christians to the greatest saint in the new
testament. Question - would you die for your beliefs?
> >
> > So you admit it isn't a hoax. That's a start. In reality, this is very
serious stuff. Whether I'm right or you are right, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IS
TO SEEK THE TRUTH. Being wrong for eternity is not a good thing. Thanks again
for your answers.
> >
> > RAY
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <wolfray@>
> > > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
> > > Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian about
> > > Atheism
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?
> > >
> > > I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably are
> > > genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man named
> > > Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?
> > >
> > > Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories
in
> > > an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in writing
> > > or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent
it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. How do you explain the resurrection?
> > >
> > > Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
> > > external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the
way
> > > nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the various
> > > myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and
Apollonius.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?
> > >
> > > You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
> > > specifically to Jesus Christ.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who
witnessed
> > > > the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)
> > >
> > > Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
> > > source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
> > > history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in history.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After all
> > > > there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and they
> > > > had him killed.
> > >
> > > Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise
Jesus
> > > and his message.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you give
> > > with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very few
> > > people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind"
people
> > > out there.
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder
and
> > > > a short story.
> > > >
> > > > Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and
ever
> > > > hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
> > > > forgiven!"
> > > >
> > > > Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these
men
> > > > alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human origin,
> > > > it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these
> > > > men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
> > > > elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
> > > > second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
> > > > grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story. The
> > > > truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE
TALKING
> > > > ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH. ALOT
> > > > DEPENDS ON IT.
> > > >
> > > > I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
> > > > PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment. I
> > > > know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
> > > >
> > > > May God Bless
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Jack, I'm not going to waste much time in reply, as you did as most athiest's
do, that is try to impress me with your enlightment and how much you think you
know about God and the Bible and how little I know. The word athiest comes from
two greek words "A" (meaning - "no") and "theos" (meaning - "God"). So be
enlightened by me. There is no way that you can make any credible claims as to
what, why, how or who God is. Except for the times of God's judgement against
evil men, all of the terrible horrendous crimes committed are done by
evil,greedy, power hungry humans who also think they are enlightened and no
best.

The end, Ray
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> Wolfray,� If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible then you
have probably only dipped into the book and have not studied it. If you believe
that Jesus brought something new to man, then you have to� expect
contradictions.� The story of his telling the crowd that he without sin should
throw the first stone is a sensational contradiction to anything that went
before it.� In fact it is so much of a contradiction that few fundamentalist can
integrate it into their religion.� They much prefer the old testament god to the
one that Jesus presents to us.� The old testament god is modeled on some of the
worst characteristics of natural man, because natural man could comprehend no
better.� So we get a vindiction, angry, jealous, and remorseful god, attributes
that do not reflect the best in man's own nature, but his worse.� They reflect
the characteristics of the typical patriarch of their time, fathers who were
powerful and had to be
>  appeased.� This god was talking to a nomadic people who did not have jails
and so the punishments were often extreme, such as killing anyone who was a
nuisance, like disobedient children, or those who commited sex acts that did not
contribute to the survival of the tribe.� Forgiveness meant constantly
confronting the same problem over and over again so it was much easier to
eliminate the problem once and for all.� A Machavellian god was essential.� How
else can you condone the savagery of their need to eliminate men, women and
children of the cities that they conquerored?� It is hard to maintain a specific
doctrine or creed if there is competition, so it is best to eliminate it.��
Communism and Nazism found the same truth important for their success.� Heresy
has to be one of the most feared crimes in any society that wants to preserve
itself in one image and one image alone.� There is nothing in the New Testament
that condones the acts of the
>  inquisition, but the old testament is quite conducive to such a concept.
>
> the concept of hell is so much more important to Jesus because it places the
responsibility on god to judge others and not on man.� The apparent justice of
heaven and hell deprive man of the right to act in god's stead.� This does not
undermine the state's right to punish offenders but it does undermine the right
of sinners to judge and punish�those they consider sinners because as Jesus tell
us, we are all sinners, no�one morally superior to any other.� Jesus is quite
consistent when he sends render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .� There
is a role for the�state to punish anyone who harms others, but not to punish
what some consider to be sinners whether their acts harm anyone else.
>
> Christians are out and out human beings with�all of our frailities and
consequently constantly attribute to Christ what they find in Moses, Joshua, and
many others.� There is a compelling need to�feel superior to others�and to
strong arm others into our own image of what is moral.��Mercy is greatly
misunderstood by those who prefer the god of the old testament to the god of the
new.� Jesus was preaching a message that is profoundly difficult for man to
accept and so he does not.
>
> Look at yourself.� See how confident you are that you know the truth even
though your knowledge of the Bible is quite superficial. You are not even aware
of the numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible.� You have
protected yourself from anything that contradicts what you want to believe.� And
anyone should well want to do who has been trained by a book that makes heresy
the greatest sin of all.� Thinking, and thinking the wrong thing is the most
dangerous thing any believer�can do and so is discouraged as often and as
forceable as it can be.� This explains why you�know so little about atheists
and�about their reasonable�objections to the Bible.� You have been trained to
believe only one thing and to believe that without question, no matter how
absurd it can be at times.
>
> You are now venturing into very dangerous waters because you�are too
confident.� If you continue, you will learns things that make everything you
know dubious and troublesome.� So like the gates of hell, the gates to
understanding others should read, Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.�
Education is so much different than indoctrination.� Non-believers are willing
to use reason and logic, which believers�have to exhault faith, and faith as
many faithful have praised to be better the more�ridiculous are the things you
believe.� It is easy to believe the reasonable so one�can hardly call it faith.�
But believing anything that defies reason is the measure of a great faith.�
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I didn't say it was important to seek the truth.  I said to seek knowledge. 
These are not the same things.  I don't need salvation, nor am I a sinner.  I
would have to be religious to believe in sin, and I am not.  But thanks for
trying.
Truth is absolutely relevant to what you believe.  How do you explain other
religions who's truth differs from yours?  They are just as certain that their
truth is THE truth.  Why are they wrong and you are right?
Devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> There can't be a better source than the Bible. I don't know what type of
research you do, but the evidence that the bible is authentic is overwhelming.
The same criteria used to determine any historical document is used on the bible
as any other historical document and the evidence is overwhelming. Also there
has never been one archeological find to refute an event in the bible. It is
God's word. Truth is not relavant to what you believe. The truth is the truth.
The sun will rise in the morning. That's true. If your blind you may not believe
that there is a sun. Does that mean the blind man knows the truth.
>
> You are exactly right in that the most important thing is to seek the truth.
If your looking for it through the prism of what man writes then you are not
going to find it. The history of man proves that. When have they ever got it
right.
>
> The difference between you and I is that I am saved and you are not. We're
both broken sinners who needs salvation. Where do you think you are going to
spend eternity.
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "devasma" <devasma@> wrote:
> >
> > You might have better luck using a source outside of the bible.  Many
dispute the bible's truth, and will not take "but the bible says so!" as a valid
argument.  Also - "you're" = "you are", "your" = "your".  "There" = "there",
"they're" = "they are".
> > Personally, I think the most important thing is to seek knowledge.  Your
truth is not my truth is not Bestonnet's truth is not a Buddhist's truth is not
a Muslim's truth is not a ... etc.  Just because you say it is the truth,
doesn't actually make it the truth.
> >
> > Devas
> >
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@" <wolfray@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Richard for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the way you
responded. Most of the time it is hateful, angry, mocking answers, which does
not endear me to this type of discussion.
> > >
> > > I'm going to respond to your answers and if you feel so inclined you can
do likewise. I could probably write a book.
> > >
> > > EMPTY TOMB
> > > -There were witnesses. Your dismissing them because of your prejudice. You
have no right to discount a christian witness to an event or happening, anymore
than I haver a right to dismiss an athiest's witness to an event or happening.
> > > -The tomb was sealed to ensure that His followers would not try to steal
the body.
> > > -There were Roman guards in place to ensure that the tomb was not tampered
with.
> > > -The body had been wrapped in linens and spices and they were still in
place when the tomb was discovered empty.
> > > -No one disputed that the tomb was empty, only what happened to the body.
> > >
> > > RESURRECTION
> > > -No witnesses? There are at least 15 appearances listed in the Bible of
the Risen Lord to over 500 people. (I guess there all smoking crack?)
> > > -You talk of natural law. Since you don't know and understand God then you
have a limited ability to understand what he can do. God created the universe,
we can't put him in our little box of limited understanding. He made natural
law, so He can do anything (ie. raise people from the dead, perform miracles) as
witnessed by hundreds if not thousands who saw Jesus (God) raise people from the
dead and perform miracles.
> > > -We have to be able to agree on one thing. The only possible way for there
to be a resurrection is that there has to be a God. So Jesus is either a liar or
the Risen Lord. If it is a hoax how could it stand up to so much scrutiny over
2000 years and yet survive.
> > > FULFILLED PROPHECY - Just 2 quick examples. I could give hundreds.
> > > -Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth. Written 700 years before it happened!!
> > > -Isaiah 9:6,7 Coming Messiah. Again 700 years prior. Liar or prophet?
> > >
> > > CHANGED LIVES
> > > -I'm talking about those in the Bible. Dicisples from cowardly wimps to
martyr's. Paul from murdering christians to the greatest saint in the new
testament. Question - would you die for your beliefs?
> > >
> > > So you admit it isn't a hoax. That's a start. In reality, this is very
serious stuff. Whether I'm right or you are right, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IS
TO SEEK THE TRUTH. Being wrong for eternity is not a good thing. Thanks again
for your answers.
> > >
> > > RAY
> > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Although I am a Christian (very liberal), I'll bite.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <wolfray@>
> > > > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:27 PM
> > > > Subject: [Death To Religion] Questions from a God fearing christian
about
> > > > Atheism
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. How do you explain away the crucifixion?
> > > >
> > > > I don't.  I would say a probably, since it is supported what probably
are
> > > > genuine remarks of Josephus and Pliny (the Roman historian).  A man
named
> > > > Jesus having a group of followers was crucified by the Romans.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. How do you explain the empty tomb?
> > > >
> > > > Probably inauthentic, since there is no acceptable witness (only stories
in
> > > > an obviously polemic gospel), with no external evidence, either in
writing
> > > > or in artifact of some other kind.  There is very high motive to invent
it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. How do you explain the resurrection?
> > > >
> > > > Definitely not.  Not only is there no witness, EVEN in the Bible, but no
> > > > external evidence, and primarily because it violates what we know of the
way
> > > > nature operates, i.e. natural law.  Also it very well follows the
various
> > > > myths of a dying and rising god, such as Mithra, Dionysius, and
Apollonius.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. How do you explain fulfilled prophecy?
> > > >
> > > > You need to specify that, and explain in each case how that would apply
> > > > specifically to Jesus Christ.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. How do you explain the completely changed lives of those who
witnessed
> > > > > the risen Lord? (Disiples, Paul, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Happens all the time.  But here you provide only the Bible, no external
> > > > source.  But there are external sources among the early Christians in
> > > > history, you could mention.  But primarily, this is not unique in
history.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. Why wasn't christianity proven to be a hoax 2000 years ago? After
all
> > > > > there were many just as you who despised Jesus and his message and
they
> > > > > had him killed.
> > > >
> > > > Probably because it's not a hoax, and because very few people despise
Jesus
> > > > and his message.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your additions, and surely it is a great temptation you
give
> > > > with the carrot of eternal glorious life after we die.  I suspect very
few
> > > > people would want to go to hell.  For sure there are a lot of "blind"
people
> > > > out there.
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will conclude this post with several Bible verses for you to ponder
and
> > > > > a short story.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark 4:13 so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and
ever
> > > > > hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be
> > > > > forgiven!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Acts 5:38,39 Therefore, in the present case I advise you; Leave these
men
> > > > > alone! Let them go! For if there purpose or activity is of human
origin,
> > > > > it weill fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop
these
> > > > > men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, three blind men were walking down a road and bumped into an
> > > > > elephant. The first grabbed its leg and said this must be a tree. The
> > > > > second grabbed the trunk and and said this must be a snake. The third
> > > > > grabbed the tusk and said this must be a spear. Moral of the story.
The
> > > > > truth is the truth regardless of what we perceive. SO WHEN WE ARE
TALKING
> > > > > ABOUT OUR ETERNAL DESTINATION YOU AND I HAD BETTER KNOW THE TRUTH.
ALOT
> > > > > DEPENDS ON IT.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope to have some good discussion. You are welcome to email me also.
> > > > > PLEASE don't try to blow smoke up my butt with any pshyo enlightment.
I
> > > > > know of what I speak and you won't change my thinking with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > May God Bless
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> There can't be a better source than the Bible. I don't know what
> type of research you do, but the evidence that the bible is
> authentic is overwhelming. The same criteria used to determine any
> historical document is used on the bible as any other historical
> document and the evidence is overwhelming. Also there has never
> been one archeological find to refute an event in the bible.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the ancient Hebrews were ever slaves in
Egypt, yet if the bible were correct that evidence would exist.

There's also no evidence that the bible was even written at the time the events
it describe occurred.

> It is God's word. Truth is not relavant to what you believe. The
> truth is the truth. The sun will rise in the morning. That's true.

The truth is that the god of the bible contradicts reality, if something
contradicts reality then it is by definition not true.

> If your blind you may not believe that there is a sun. Does that
> mean the blind man knows the truth.

There are other ways of determining that the sun exists (though I don't know of
anyone burnt at the stake for saying the sun doesn't exist).

> You are exactly right in that the most important thing is to seek
> the truth. If your looking for it through the prism of what man
> writes then you are not going to find it. The history of man proves
> that. When have they ever got it right.

We've tried many things, so far only science has come close to finding the truth
(religion has failed quite miserably).

Ray, It is sad to see how unwilling you are to deal with the issues you yourself
brought up.�� "I'm right and you are wrong," is the argument of a child who
knows he has not yet achieved a good enough understanding to say anything
else.��� If you are interested in a discussion, I am available, but if you are a
preacher, you need to find another congregation.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

His first message did give me the impression that it was preaching disguised as
dialogue and the further messages from him have confirmed that.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> Ray, It is sad to see how unwilling you are to deal with the issues
> you yourself brought up.�� "I'm right and you are wrong," is the
> argument of a child who knows he has not yet achieved a good enough
> understanding to say anything else.��� If you are interested in a
> discussion, I am available, but if you are a preacher, you need to
> find another congregation.

----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Questions from a God fearing christian
about Atheism


> There can't be a better source than the Bible. I don't know what type of
> research you do, but the evidence that the bible is authentic is
> overwhelming. The same criteria used to determine any historical document
> is used on the bible as any other historical document and the evidence is
> overwhelming. Also there has never been one archeological find to refute
> an event in the bible.

Really???  What evidence.  You talk a big talk, so now let's see some
walking.  Give me your evidence.


It is God's word. Truth is not relavant to what you believe. The truth is
the truth. The sun will rise in the morning. That's true. If your blind you
may not believe that there is a sun. Does that mean the blind man knows the
truth.

The Vedas are much earlier, and probably more truth there.  The sun doesn't
rise.  Where do you come from?

>
> You are exactly right in that the most important thing is to seek the
> truth. If your looking for it through the prism of what man writes then
> you are not going to find it. The history of man proves that. When have
> they ever got it right.

R:  So God wrote it?  Did you see him do that?  Is your God a genocidal
maniac as the Bible says?

>
> The difference between you and I is that I am saved and you are not. We're
> both broken sinners who needs salvation. Where do you think you are going
> to spend eternity.

R:  I think you will die and be gone just like everyone else.  What proof do
you have otherwise?--not something your God wrote.  People fool themselves
all the time/

> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "devasma" <devasma@...> wrote:
>>
>> You might have better luck using a source outside of the bible.  Many
>> dispute the bible's truth, and will not take "but the bible says so!" as
>> a valid argument.  Also - "you're" = "you are", "your" = "your".  "There"
>> = "there", "they're" = "they are".
>> Personally, I think the most important thing is to seek knowledge.  Your
>> truth is not my truth is not Bestonnet's truth is not a Buddhist's truth
>> is not a Muslim's truth is not a ... etc.  Just because you say it is the
>> truth, doesn't actually make it the truth.

R:  I think you should take it more easy with that crack you're smoking.  It
might kill you, eternally dead.


>>
>> Devas
>>

wolfray@... wrote:
> There can't be a better source than the Bible.

What else is packed more full of lies, contradictions,  and
exaggerations than the bible? It's definitely the best source.

This will probably be my last post to this group. I appreciate all of the
response from you all. I don't happen to believe a word you say, but that's ok.
I knew exactly what kind of response I would get. Your message is worn out. It's
the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.

All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger, anger,
hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your point. All I
hear is the Bible is full of contradictions, it all a hoax, no empty tomb, can't
be a resurrection because is doesn't conform to natural law and on and on.

You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it or it
doesn't conform to your preconceived world. So let's use that same logic about
past history. Back in the day when people thought that the earth was flat, if
someone came and said the earth was round, your logic would be that it is a
hoax, it can't be because it doesn't conform to natural law. What about space
travel, invention of the internal combustion engine, television, cell phone,
computer. In all of those cases you would be proven wrong. You see to deny that
something does not exist or can't or didn't happen you must also be able to
prove that claim by evidence. To prove that something does not exist or can't
happen is much more difficult than proving that something does exist. To prove
that God doesn't exist you would need to know everything about God. Since you
claim there is no God, how can you possibly know everything about him to prove
he does not exist.

Final statement: If I'm wrong and  you are right what have I lost. an argument.
So I would have evolved from a pile of goo and had my 70-80 years on this broken
earth and then back to the earth to let the worms eat me. Yummy!! HOWEVER, IF
I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST? EVERYTHING!!!

May God Open your eyes to the truth, God fearing christian.

Sorry you're leaving, but while I am not an atheist, and consider myself to
be a Christian, I believe it is your message that is worn out.

Certainly I have no anger or hate, and my arguments were based entirely on
evidence and good reasoning.  Your "message" has caused you to be paranoid
from interaction with others who do not share your view.  You claim I
presented no evidence against your view that archaeology supports your view
of the Bible. That's true, but I asked you for YOUR evidence for your view,
since it was you who made the claim.  I would be happy to present to you
enough evidence to take up a few pages of space here, that archaeology not
only doesn't support biblical history, but in many cases shows biblical
history to be wrong.  But the first burden to show evidence was on you,
because you made the claim.

There are plenty of cases of contradictions in the Bible, you could call
discrepancies if you wish.  One that came up in another forum, briefly is:
a. Paul went to Damascus, b. Paul did not go to Damascus.  There are many
more.  The empty tomb story, as well as virgin birth of Jesus, are very
questionable, and seem to be very late theories, after Mark, but in time for
Matthew and Luke.  Don't you think Paul would have said something about
these seemingly very important items? Paul did know the resurrection and
ascension stories.

I don't deny there is a God.  I affirm that.  You refer to logic in regard
to changes in scientific theories.  This is not logic. It is the on-going
process of science, results of later discoveries, and this happens all the
time.  The passage from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, for the
ultimates of reality, was difficult and painful for some, but eventually all
scientists were convinced by the evidence.  That's just the way science
goes:  continually self-correcting.  Space travel follows Newtonian physics,
as well as the others.  Discoveries and inventions occur all the time, and
we are used to it.  The difference between these and your theories, is the
matter of good evidence.  For example, if Jesus had brought Lazarus back to
life from death, then that should be replicable, but it never has been
repeated. All those things you mentioned, accomplishments of science, do
have proof.

You ask for evidence for a claim of a negative.  If you knew something about
logic and philosophy or science, you would know that a negative cannot be
proven.  Prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that Satan didn't
create the universe, or that an elephant doesn't hold up the universe, or
that fairies don't exist.

I don't think anyone here, certainly not myself, entertains the thought it
can be proven that God does not exist.  It can't be done, because it's a
negative claim.  The claim there is no simply means there is no evidence
there is a God.  No one can prove God does not exist.

So you bring up Pascal's argument, the one he made in jest.  Fine, and if it
happens that the true God is Brahman, and future life depends on karma
through samsara, for reincarnation, then you missed out on bettering
yourself, perhaps becoming a mouse.  Or if Allah is the true God then you go
to hell because of your polygamy, which denies the most important maxim in
Islam, that God is One God.

There's no use in your getting all worked up on this.  We just have ideas
different from yours.  Take it like a man (if you are a man).

Richard.




----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Flawed Logic


> This will probably be my last post to this group. I appreciate all of the
> response from you all. I don't happen to believe a word you say, but
> that's ok. I knew exactly what kind of response I would get. Your message
> is worn out. It's the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.
>
> All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger,
> anger, hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your
> point. All I hear is the Bible is full of contradictions, it all a hoax,
> no empty tomb, can't be a resurrection because is doesn't conform to
> natural law and on and on.
>
> You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it
> or it doesn't conform to your preconceived world. So let's use that same
> logic about past history. Back in the day when people thought that the
> earth was flat, if someone came and said the earth was round, your logic
> would be that it is a hoax, it can't be because it doesn't conform to
> natural law. What about space travel, invention of the internal combustion
> engine, television, cell phone, computer. In all of those cases you would
> be proven wrong. You see to deny that something does not exist or can't or
> didn't happen you must also be able to prove that claim by evidence. To
> prove that something does not exist or can't happen is much more difficult
> than proving that something does exist. To prove that God doesn't exist
> you would need to know everything about God. Since you claim there is no
> God, how can you possibly know everything about him to prove he does not
> exist.
>
> Final statement: If I'm wrong and  you are right what have I lost. an
> argument. So I would have evolved from a pile of goo and had my 70-80
> years on this broken earth and then back to the earth to let the worms eat
> me. Yummy!! HOWEVER, IF I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST?
> EVERYTHING!!!
>
> May God Open your eyes to the truth, God fearing christian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has survived
for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like you have been
trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.

Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who want to
destroy??? flawed logic!!!

Ray

Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.

Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.

Have fun,

Richard.


----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
>
> Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

wolfray@... wrote:
> I knew exactly what kind of response I would get.

Makes you wonder why you even came here in the first place.

> Your message is worn out. It's the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.
>
> All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger, anger,
hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your point.

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

> All I hear is the Bible is full of contradictions

It is. Theologins (sp?) who have studied the bible and everything
surrounding it for practically all of their life will tell you this. I'm
pretty confident they know more than you, some internet schlub trolling
the atheist groups looking for answers he already knows he's going to get.

> You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it or
it doesn't conform to your preconceived world.

I deny YOUR god, whatever it is.

> HOWEVER, IF I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST? EVERYTHING!!!

My life wouldn't change a bit. If a god does exist, so what? I'll still
get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, play some video games, visit
with friends and family, etc. etc. I'm a good person despite there being
a guy up in the sky or not. Nothing changes. The only person that loses
out is someone like you.

Richard!!

Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless
you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died
on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.

Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out people
I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain.
That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who doesn't need one is
certainly being reaffirmed.

Christ in all, Ray

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>
> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Richard.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wolfray@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> >
> > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Ray, unless your future messages have anything intelligent to say (perhaps
backed by facts, not "but the bible says so!"), they will not be approved for
posting.
Devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Richard!!
>
> Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless
you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died
on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.
>
> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out people
I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain.
That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who doesn't need one is
certainly being reaffirmed.
>
> Christ in all, Ray
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> > familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> > it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> > opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> > your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> > Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> > believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> > Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> > then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
> >
> > Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> > with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> > no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> > taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> > taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <wolfray@>
> > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> > Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
> >
> >
> > > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> > >
> > > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Richard!!
>
> Are you for real.

Yep.

I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a christian. I'm a
christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless you have
accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died on
the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.

Probably you are a Christian.  I am the kind of Christian that basically is
around everywhere, from Spong to Jesus Seminar, even beyond Christianity to
Kushner.  This is the liberal kind of Christian which meets the new times of
our global age, in which exclusivism has died, and the Jesus type inclusion
is fast reforming Christianity, a praxis performing Jesus healing religion
that works for humanity, not against it for some life after death in the sky
bye and bye, separating the exlusive elite from those not believing in the
theology and doomed to hell.  You are on the losing team. I accept Jesus
Christ as savior in the practical world of the necessity of helping needy
people, not in a theoretical world of heaven for the elite believers.

>
> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
> psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out
> people I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out
> of the rain. That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who
> doesn't need one is certainly being reaffirmed.

Man-made is all we have.  We cannot separate ourselves from our brains.

Christ is all, not theoretical for departure from this so-called evil world,
but for working in this world for a better humanity.

Richard.


>
> Christ in all, Ray
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
>> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now.
>> But
>> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have
>> your
>> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
>> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
>> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.
>> I
>> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
>> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I
>> believe,
>> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>>
>> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang
>> out
>> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you
>> have
>> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
>> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business.
>> I
>> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Richard.

Devas, if I could make a suggestion:  Keep him here.  This is much better
than atheists conversing from the pat on the back perspective.  I can talk
with this guy because I used to be where he is, and I am a Christian that
has much the same philosophical foundation that you people have.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "devasma" <devasma@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Ray, unless your future messages have anything intelligent to say (perhaps
> backed by facts, not "but the bible says so!"), they will not be approved
> for posting.
> Devas
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>>
>> Richard!!
>>
>> Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
>> christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and
>> unless you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior,
>> believe tht he died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day
>> and have repented of your sins then you are not a christian.
>>
>> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
>> psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out
>> people I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in
>> out of the rain. That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist
>> who doesn't need one is certainly being reaffirmed.
>>
>> Christ in all, Ray
>>
>> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
>> > familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now.
>> > But
>> > it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have
>> > your
>> > opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to
>> > "destroy"
>> > your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
>> > Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.
>> > I
>> > believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
>> > Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I
>> > believe,
>> > then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>> >
>> > Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang
>> > out
>> > with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you
>> > have
>> > no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and
>> > I
>> > taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my
>> > business. I
>> > taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>> >
>> > Have fun,
>> >
>> > Richard.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: <wolfray@>
>> > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
>> > Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
>> > > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people
>> > > like
>> > > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that
>> > > message.
>> > >
>> > > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the
>> > > cornerstone of
>> > > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those
>> > > who
>> > > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Wow, We're starting to get a little testy. I guess when you have nothing, you
start making threats. So be it.

Why would I want to go anywhere except the Bible, that's where the real truth
is. I know it and understand it and you don't, you can't throw me off the right
path so you want to kick me out because you feel threatened. I have read plenty
of book's, enough to know that what is contrived by man is fool's gold. In a few
years there will be something else new and improved that we are supposed to
swallow because some enlightened philosipher has found the new truth. Through
all this the one constant is God's word. What are you afraid of. Are you afraid
of death? I'm not.

Have a wonderful day, Ray

No one wants to kick you out because they feel threatened.  You have nothing new
to say that will inspire intelligent debate.  "Because the bible says so" does
not make for interesting conversation.  Most here think the bible was written by
man, not god, and is therefore "fool's gold" to us.
I'm not afraid of death, why would I be?  I don't believe in the hell you say
I'm going to.
Devas, pretty bored by this lack of conversation

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
>  Wow, We're starting to get a little testy. I guess when you have nothing, you
start making threats. So be it.
>
> Why would I want to go anywhere except the Bible, that's where the real truth
is. I know it and understand it and you don't, you can't throw me off the right
path so you want to kick me out because you feel threatened. I have read plenty
of book's, enough to know that what is contrived by man is fool's gold. In a few
years there will be something else new and improved that we are supposed to
swallow because some enlightened philosipher has found the new truth. Through
all this the one constant is God's word. What are you afraid of. Are you afraid
of death? I'm not.
>
> Have a wonderful day, Ray
>

Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine."  - Does that also
apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you gave the
elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or, was that story
just your opinion, and not related to truth?

Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful in
finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the truth?  To
perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you perceive
correctly.

Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof. Breggen
has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can stand outside
the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat, the grinder, the
table, [or elephant] and so on."   (Hendrick van der Breggen, Assistant
Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and Seminary; cited in Christian
Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)

If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and false.
But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the elephant along with
the others.

Looking forward to your reply.


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>
> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Richard.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wolfray@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> >
> > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Nice summary Wolfray. Mr. Musser, you stated, "You are not even aware of the
numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible."

Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
"contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an
atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ were in
contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that hard to
figure out), he simply responded without responding to the matter anymore.

It has been my experience to see that atheism has developed it's own mythology,
influencing it's adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or that without
testing their assumption.

Looking forward to your reply Mr. Musser.





--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Jack, I'm not going to waste much time in reply, as you did as most athiest's
do, that is try to impress me with your enlightment and how much you think you
know about God and the Bible and how little I know. The word athiest comes from
two greek words "A" (meaning - "no") and "theos" (meaning - "God"). So be
enlightened by me. There is no way that you can make any credible claims as to
what, why, how or who God is. Except for the times of God's judgement against
evil men, all of the terrible horrendous crimes committed are done by
evil,greedy, power hungry humans who also think they are enlightened and no
best.
>
> The end, Ray
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@> wrote:
> >
> > Wolfray,� If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible then you
have probably only dipped into the book and have not studied it. If you believe
that Jesus brought something new to man, then you have to� expect
contradictions.� The story of his telling the crowd that he without sin should
throw the first stone is a sensational contradiction to anything that went
before it.� In fact it is so much of a contradiction that few fundamentalist can
integrate it into their religion.� They much prefer the old testament god to the
one that Jesus presents to us.� The old testament god is modeled on some of the
worst characteristics of natural man, because natural man could comprehend no
better.� So we get a vindiction, angry, jealous, and remorseful god, attributes
that do not reflect the best in man's own nature, but his worse.� They reflect
the characteristics of the typical patriarch of their time, fathers who were
powerful and had to be
> >  appeased.� This god was talking to a nomadic people who did not have jails
and so the punishments were often extreme, such as killing anyone who was a
nuisance, like disobedient children, or those who commited sex acts that did not
contribute to the survival of the tribe.� Forgiveness meant constantly
confronting the same problem over and over again so it was much easier to
eliminate the problem once and for all.� A Machavellian god was essential.� How
else can you condone the savagery of their need to eliminate men, women and
children of the cities that they conquerored?� It is hard to maintain a specific
doctrine or creed if there is competition, so it is best to eliminate it.��
Communism and Nazism found the same truth important for their success.� Heresy
has to be one of the most feared crimes in any society that wants to preserve
itself in one image and one image alone.� There is nothing in the New Testament
that condones the acts of the
> >  inquisition, but the old testament is quite conducive to such a concept.
> >
> > the concept of hell is so much more important to Jesus because it places the
responsibility on god to judge others and not on man.� The apparent justice of
heaven and hell deprive man of the right to act in god's stead.� This does not
undermine the state's right to punish offenders but it does undermine the right
of sinners to judge and punish�those they consider sinners because as Jesus tell
us, we are all sinners, no�one morally superior to any other.� Jesus is quite
consistent when he sends render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .� There
is a role for the�state to punish anyone who harms others, but not to punish
what some consider to be sinners whether their acts harm anyone else.
> >
> > Christians are out and out human beings with�all of our frailities and
consequently constantly attribute to Christ what they find in Moses, Joshua, and
many others.� There is a compelling need to�feel superior to others�and to
strong arm others into our own image of what is moral.��Mercy is greatly
misunderstood by those who prefer the god of the old testament to the god of the
new.� Jesus was preaching a message that is profoundly difficult for man to
accept and so he does not.
> >
> > Look at yourself.� See how confident you are that you know the truth even
though your knowledge of the Bible is quite superficial. You are not even aware
of the numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible.� You have
protected yourself from anything that contradicts what you want to believe.� And
anyone should well want to do who has been trained by a book that makes heresy
the greatest sin of all.� Thinking, and thinking the wrong thing is the most
dangerous thing any believer�can do and so is discouraged as often and as
forceable as it can be.� This explains why you�know so little about atheists
and�about their reasonable�objections to the Bible.� You have been trained to
believe only one thing and to believe that without question, no matter how
absurd it can be at times.
> >
> > You are now venturing into very dangerous waters because you�are too
confident.� If you continue, you will learns things that make everything you
know dubious and troublesome.� So like the gates of hell, the gates to
understanding others should read, Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.�
Education is so much different than indoctrination.� Non-believers are willing
to use reason and logic, which believers�have to exhault faith, and faith as
many faithful have praised to be better the more�ridiculous are the things you
believe.� It is easy to believe the reasonable so one�can hardly call it faith.�
But believing anything that defies reason is the measure of a great faith.�
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:


From: bob bobby <spacehut1@...>
Subject: Darwin Admits Creator
To: spacehut1@...
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:42 PM







 
Hi everyone!  I just now joined the group – looking to
see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
dialogue? I hope so …
 
I was rather surprised and perplexed when I came
across this statement a year or two ago.  The supreme
evolutionist Charles Darwin appears to attribute the start
of natural life to, in his words, “the Creator.”  This seems
to contradict the suggestion by evolutionist schoolbooks
that science and religion are completely separate.  If
religion is to ‘stay out of schools,’ shouldn’t Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution also be excluded? – since it posits
God as the original source?
 
Quoting Darwin –  “ .. all the living forms of life are the
lineal descendants of those which lived long before .. It is
interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with
many plants of many kinds, with birds .. and to reflect that
these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each
other, and dependent from each other, in so complex a
manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us ..
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one .. from so simple a beginning
endless  forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.”  
 
- The Origin Of Species  by Means of Natural Selection or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life  (6th edition, 1872; reprinted 2004, Castle Books),
pages 669-70,  by:  Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Hero
of the Theory of Evolution
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!  I just now joined the group �" looking to
> see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> dialogue? I hope so …

Why do I get the feeling you won't be?