Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Hi

Expand Messages
  • praesto12
    I don t hate Atheist. I was an Atheist.They re just wrong.  I m sure as heck not afraid of an Atheist hahaha. That s funny. Maybe you just hate Christians?
    Message 1 of 202 , Sep 12, 2010
      I don't hate Atheist. I was an Atheist.They're just wrong.

       I'm sure as heck not afraid of an 'Atheist' hahaha. That's funny. Maybe you
      just hate Christians?

      I had a friend that was a satanist. All black, upside down cross, weird tattos
      and when i looked at the guy I saw the same thing I see when I look at myself. A
      human being.  Atheist are confused, and intellectually wrong. But there are
      generally good reasons for why they began to reject God. I think 'they' mostly
      just need to talk to someone that cares about them.

       I'm not sure you are reading anything I'm posting. I love you in that you are a
      person with real issues, and I can sense the frustrations you seem to have with
      your chruch. I can' t make you use rationality when you read my emails though
      and you will see what you want to.


      From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 10:19:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Hi

      Eh, he sounds like most other Christians I know- most of them hate atheists or
      are afraid of them.

      From: Clint <cy2600@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 1:04:03 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Hi

      kaylee coats wrote:
      > to help you with some
      > perspective, hating something you don't believe in is completely pointless.
      > be like you being angry at Zeus or Athena because you didn't believe in them.

      What you will quickly learn about Preasto is how he twists things around
      to suit his agenda. Of course we don't hate something that isn't there.
      It's impossible. What he means is that he hates atheists and himself for
      being one earlier in life.

      He will also tell you how you are messed up mentally (ie-"I really
      really sense in you a frustration" "I think you have taken the kool aid.
      I sense from you the cynicism of many others" then assume to know
      everything about your life "I'm so sorry you feel so failed by your
      church" "you are turning your back on God") Then he will want to pray
      for you in hopes of conversion... more proselytizing... and be
      apologetic pretending he doesn't know that he's doing it...

      > praesto12 wrote:
      >> I don't know if it's proselytizing if they are thinking about leaving the
      >> family/
      >> I believe you guys can kick me out of your "I hate God because I don't believe
      >> in him" group ?
      >> kaylee I'm just simply trying to talk to you via email. If I offended you then
      >> apologize.
      >> I really really sense in you a frustration that I have too, which is Church
      >> people pretending to be "Christians" who hate people simply for the sake of
      >> hating them. I truly believe that atheism has nothing to offer you personally,
      >> intellectually, and spiritually.
      >> I'm not just talking about my own experiences here. You can look at the lives

      >> of the most impactful Atheistic writers, from Darwin, Virigina wolf,
      >> Rand,Freud,Marx, Nietszche, Sartre, Camus extc. and see that the further one
      >> moves away from God the more despairing he/she becomes. Again, I was not raised
      >> a Christian, I'm just reading the writing on the wall. Atheism fails. When all
      >> the bitterness and self righteousness fades Atheist are left with nothing. If

      >> someone wants to drink poision then I will try not to let them, but the truth

      >> that ideas can be more destructive than poision. Atheism, darwinism, communism
      >> extc are worse than poision. Poision can only kill the body of the person
      >> it. "Bad ideas" in the hands of the wrong people can take over entire countries
      >> and lead to the death of millions.

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

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Godwin
      First, I didn t deny your Table of Nations. What I did say is that it is borrowed from Sumerian sources previously, and I indicated there is nothing special
      Message 202 of 202 , Sep 27, 2010
        First, I didn't deny your Table of Nations. What I did say is that it is
        borrowed from Sumerian sources previously, and I indicated there is nothing
        special about genealogy as it is ubiquitous in religions. What do you think
        is significant about it? I don't see a statement of that from you. I don't
        see how logic is involved in this. Reason is, but not logic. Now: please
        state what you think is the significance of this Table of Nations or

        As to the DH, I already said Wellhausen's original view is roundly revised
        by all scholars, or we might say "honed." And I think you should have
        Wesselius in mind, but that doesn't matter. So you don't think "it will go
        the way" I think? How is that? Go what way? You surely need to explain
        that. Where do you see I am not open-minded, or is that just a technique you
        make for diversion? If you think my comments are rhetorical, please explain
        why specifically, i.e. in regard to what?

        I suggest you state your view, and if you wish you can respond to my
        comments. The questions are to bring out from you what you think it means
        and how you explain it in the process of scholarship. Or do you stop with
        Wellhausen? Just let me know.

        You brought it up: the DH. So don't excuse yourself by trying to put some
        ad hominem on me. That's both silly and completely unprofessional. I did
        get to the point, but evidently you can't see it. My opinion is that I do
        accept the DH so long as it is revised to be open to variations in the
        authorship of the various authors and to be for the Primary History rather
        than the Pentateuch, and that the dates of composition are second temple
        times, contrary to most of the DH'ers (although Freedman did admit this for
        most of the authors).

        You brought it up, so evidently you have your definition of the DH in mind:
        Please tell me what is your definition. Don't put the onus on me, because
        it's your topic. Then I'll respond to that. I am not a "fan" of
        Wellhausen, and neither is any other scholar, since his concept has been

        Your ad hominems against me have no relevance here. I suggest those remarks
        you make are only for cover up of something? What would that be?

        So please present your concept of the DH and your arguments. Perhaps I just
        jumped the gun on you. Let's begin again, and this time with YOU.

        All right?


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "praesto12" <Praesto12@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:30 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Scholarship.

        My time here is whatever it is Godwin. And I am not your friend. You've
        the table of nations, make a ridiculous claim and do nothing to back it
        up. Geneology is not a borrowed motif, nor is the history narrative it caste
        upon mankind. Pay attention before you try to communicate. I readily admit
        limitations in understanding the totality of scripture, as anyone should .
        not the one that makes claims like " I read it all" therefor I know
        about it like you guys. I'm sorry, it's imply impossible. It's an illogical
        statement. to make. And yet, you guys make it frequently throwing logic out
        window. Y'all tend to hide behind your claims of logic, protecting a
        wounded heart. I digress.

        I'd love to go into Wellhausen, and as I've said if I dont know then I don't
        know, but I want to discuss this further. I don't think it will go the way
        think however. I don't see you as being open minded either, so perhaps these
        comments are rhetorical. You brought up many questions. Is there a specif
        one or
        a few that you would like to discuss? Or where you just trying to be a
        know-it-all prick and throw a bunch of question into one email. As I've said
        before get to the point. Let me make is simpler for you.

        Do you follow the Documentary Hypothesis?

        Pra: Define as you deem fit.

        your opinions on the matter?

        Pra: opinions and ideas, if there are specific terms you want to discuss
        then we

        Are you a fan of wellhausen.

        I'll elaborate more specifically for you. What scholarship do you buy into
        regards to either the Tanakh or New Testament? What academic garbage do you
        readily ingest to support your wacked out ideas?

        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:43:17 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Scholarship.

        I think your time here is short, my friend. I already agreed to discuss
        something in the Bible. Didn't you see that. What time periods do you think
        its parts were composed? for example. Something else of or in the Bible?
        You got nowhere with your Table of Nations, a motif borrowed from other
        societies. I suggest you are the one who doesn't understand the Bible. So
        show me you do.

        "Godwin, simple question . Do you follow the Documentary Hypothesis? What
        your opinions on the matter? Are you a fan of wellhausen?"

        AhHa, now there's something substantive from you. Very good, and we can
        discuss that. My answer depends on what one calls the DH. Wellhausen, as
        you should know, has been surpassed, so we don't need to discuss his
        introductionary theory (Jan-Wim Wesselius, right?). Do you agree? Let's to
        Friedman and Freedman. So you need to give us a definition of it, and tell
        me if it requires the Penteuch, or the Primary History to which it evolved,
        and will it require Friedman's dating? Or as revised in Freedman's dating?
        Does it have to be 4 sources, or can it be less? Do you accept
        archaeological evidence? Shall we consider Berossus and Manetho for
        collateral information? Will you accept the relevance of the Copenhagens
        (Thompson, Lemche, Whitfield), and Peter Davies of Sheffield?

        I suppose you are aware of Friedman's explanation in "Who Wrote the Bible",
        right? And you know of his own revision of that. And your know Freedman's
        revision. Right. So go with it. I await your full definition and
        description, as well as dating. I warn you: I am a revisionist (but in a
        different application than afore mentioned).

        I await your response.


        Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 11:29:07 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Hi

        I'm ready for you on the Bible. Are you ready? But not the preachy stuff.
        Let's get down to the intellectual stuff. Also early Christian history, if
        you wish. Also different Christologies in the NT, if you wish.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "praesto12" <Praesto12@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:35 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Hi

        I do generally think that you guys lack knowledge about the Bible, Christ
        the Church. For many reasons. I also think this about myself. It's not an
        insult, but yes I do believe that.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.