Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Not you, Dicardo. --- Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 08 February 2007 2:57 am, Michael > Madigan wrote: > > I thought you WERE a TV. > > Hi Michael! > > Really? How, from my web picture? > > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Thursday 08 February 2007 2:57 am, Michael Madigan wrote: > I thought you WERE a TV. Hi Michael! Really? How, from my web picture? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > I thought you WERE a TV. > Now Mike, why would you say that of Pete? > > > --- Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Friday 26 January 2007 10:21 am, Ricardo Aráoz >> wrote: >>> Jean Laeremans wrote: On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: > Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the >> missing link between ape > and Pete. No need to stoop to their level though >>> Why not! It's so funny! And they get so >> disoriented. Beats the TV >> >> Hi Ricardo! >> >> Faint praise, anything beats TV. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Pete >> http://www.pete-theisen.com/ >> >> ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I thought you WERE a TV. --- Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 26 January 2007 10:21 am, Ricardo Aráoz > wrote: > > Jean Laeremans wrote: > > > On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the > missing link between ape > > >> and Pete. > > > > > > No need to stoop to their level though > > > > Why not! It's so funny! And they get so > disoriented. Beats the TV > > Hi Ricardo! > > Faint praise, anything beats TV. > > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Friday 26 January 2007 10:21 am, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Jean Laeremans wrote: > > On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the missing link between ape > >> and Pete. > > > > No need to stoop to their level though > > Why not! It's so funny! And they get so disoriented. Beats the TV Hi Ricardo! Faint praise, anything beats TV. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Friday 26 January 2007 6:57 pm, Jean Laeremans wrote: > On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the missing link between ape > > and Pete. > > No need to stoop to their level though Hi Jean! That you two should be so superior to Mike and I. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Thursday 25 January 2007 5:50 pm, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Not exactly, the teaching says that the Pope is always right when he > speaks about dogma (or something like that. Anyone with better info?). Hi Ricardo! That's close to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Monday 22 January 2007 8:21 pm, Ed Leafe wrote: > Recalling my catechism from my childhood, I knew that baptized > babies who died before the age of 7 were supposed to go straight to > heaven, as they didn't have the capacity to distinguish right from > wrong until that age, so they couldn't have sinned. It seemed logical > at that point that the best solution was to have a kid, get it > baptized, and then kill it. You might go to hell, but all those > babies would be enjoying eternal happiness, thanks to you. Hi Ed! I can just see you running that past the priests and nuns. What beatings you must have suffered for your beliefs. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, I already said: it's a FACT that the Christian bible is a work written by many different men, (who frequently contradicted themselves), re-told myths from different cultural traditions, with loose links to historical events and facts, all build up from another religion (as is always the case regarding religions), all build from jewish folklore. It's all made up. I don't believe in those things. There's an old book, which I recommend it to you, written by a respectful, secularist, agnostic person, the very famous Isaac Asimov, called: "Asimov's Guide to the Bible - The Old and New Testment". >From the back cover: " In Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Isaac Asimov explores the historical, geographical, and biographical aspects of the events described in the Old and New Testments. Asimov's attempts to illuminate the Bible's many obscure, mysterious passages prove absorbing reading for anyone interested in religion and history. " My edition is from 1981, the book was originally printed as two separate editions, 1967 and 1969, covering the Old and the New testment, respectively. It's neutral. Unlike many other secularist books, Asimov's doesn't attempt to debunk religious beliefs, he just comments on what was known (at the time of the writing) about facts, persons and events linked to those depicted on the bible. HW On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 03:40 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > > >Wow, they certainly taught you how NOT TO THINK very well... > > No need to be insulting. Maybe I should have been more verbose in my > question, so I'll restate it. > > So you say you reject God for the exact reasons you reject the concept of > Zeus, Vishnu, etc. In my thinking I don't reject God, so I don't believe I > follow your reasoning. I could perhaps make some guesses, but it would > probably be better if you provide your reasons for rejection directly. > > Does that make it more clear why I "wasn't thinking" when I posted the > original question? > > -Charlie > > >On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >Yes, I'm a infidel. > > > > > > > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe > > in Zeus, > > > >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. > > > > > > OK. What are those reasons? > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On 1/27/07, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your sister said I was hung, I guess that's the same > thing. How low can you go ? A+ jml ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Your sister said I was hung, I guess that's the same thing. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: > > Stoop? You need a ladder to get to my ankles. > > > > So your neighbors finally hanged you by your ankles > like they did to > Mussolini? > > > > > --- Jean Laeremans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the > >> missing link between ape > >>> and Pete. > >> No need to stoop to their level though > >> > >> A+ > >> jml > >> > >> > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Stoop? You need a ladder to get to my ankles. > So your neighbors finally hanged you by your ankles like they did to Mussolini? > > --- Jean Laeremans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the >> missing link between ape >>> and Pete. >> No need to stoop to their level though >> >> A+ >> jml >> >> ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Jean Laeremans wrote: > On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the missing link between ape >> and Pete. > > No need to stoop to their level though > Why not! It's so funny! And they get so disoriented. Beats the TV > A+ > jml > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Stoop? You need a ladder to get to my ankles. --- Jean Laeremans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the > missing link between ape > > and Pete. > > No need to stoop to their level though > > A+ > jml > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 03:40 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > >> Wow, they certainly taught you how NOT TO THINK very well... > > No need to be insulting. Maybe I should have been more verbose in my > question, so I'll restate it. > > So you say you reject God for the exact reasons you reject the concept of > Zeus, Vishnu, etc. In my thinking I don't reject God, so I don't believe I > follow your reasoning. I could perhaps make some guesses, but it would > probably be better if you provide your reasons for rejection directly. > I think you are right Charlie. God is not necessary for a scientific explanation of existance. But that does not mean he does not exist. Believing or not in a superior being is clearly a decision. What I always question is the naivety of some beliefs. > Does that make it more clear why I "wasn't thinking" when I posted the > original question? > > -Charlie > >> On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, I'm a infidel. I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe >> in Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris, etc. >>> OK. What are those reasons? >>> > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On 1/26/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the missing link between ape > and Pete. No need to stoop to their level though A+ jml ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Jean Laeremans wrote: > On 1/26/07, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well if Creationism is ludicrous, where's the missing >> link between ape and man? >> > Had a look in the mirror lately ? Hahahaha! Good one! But you're wrong, he's the missing link between ape and Pete. > A+ > jml > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 03:12 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >> Charlie, >> >> What are you coming up next? That evolution has already been debunked too? >> >> I hear all the time religious people claiming that there're plenty of >> "scientific" evidence pointing to criationism and that simply is not true. >> Criationism is a ludicrous lie. > > I'm not really opposed to evolutionary theory. I think it's quite possible > that's it was the mechanism God used to bring us about. The problem I have > with evolution is in a couple areas: first, the most appropriate and best > study for the proof of evolution should be a "historical" science, I think not. Historical refers to documented things, there is no history possible there. You must be referring to Archaeological science. And I think they also agree. > not a > "biological" science. Correct? Yet most historical evidence is ignored by > evolutionary theorists in favor of trying to explain things in terms of > what "might" be able to happen biologically. Next, even moving into the > "biological" investigations, the problems with probability are ignored. What is 'evolution' but the name we give to the action of probability over genes along millions of years? > In > other words, as I recall, the mathematical probability that humans would > result from the process of evolution is so minute that it is reasonably > impossible. If the total probability field is composed of other beings with the same order of probability of existing than humans that is not so unreasonable. Besides probability is probability, everyday a number which had a million chances against it wins the lottery. Someone WILL win, it just happened it was us. > But that is generally ignored as well by most evolution theory > supporters (but I think some of the evolutionists do acknowledge the > problem, and they generally address it by saying the Earth was seeded by > aliens). Oh! C'mon!!! You've been talking to Mike too long. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:07 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... >>> For even more fun, do you deny that God could limit Himself if He so >> chose? >>> In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, do you think He would >>> stick to it? >>> >> If he is really omnipotent, and always tells the truth (though that >> would be a limitation to his omnipotence), then I think he would never >> have the desire to do that as that would put limits to him and hence >> he'd no longer be omnipotent (that supposing he is limited by logic, if >> he is not then I can say nothing about him, nor can you. That is what >> some religions state, that you can say nothing about god). Once you >> start playing with concepts like Omnipotence, eternity, etc. you get >> into contradictions very easily. > ... > > Yep. Concepts of 'infinity' are beyond our really comprehension. So we end > up having a language problem trying to explain and understand these things. > And that's one of the reasons some people have given up in believing in God > at all. Something that can't fit into their logic/terms simply doesn't > exist to them. > > So, anyway, in regards to these issues, I defer to what Christ taught as > opposed to trying to make a syntactically perfect lexical argument. Of > course, if you don't believe in Christ, you wouldn't put any weight into > what He taught. You misjudge me. If the teachings are sound I don't care if they come from a talking frog. > So, at this point (I'm assuming you don't believe in > Christ), you and I are at an impasse to take this discussion any further. > But I think we've explained our respective sides clearly enough. > > I hope I've provided some useful information and I thank you for providing > yours. > Yes, it was a nice chat. > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
God I'm good looking! But answer my question Frenchy. --- Jean Laeremans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/07, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Well if Creationism is ludicrous, where's the > missing > > link between ape and man? > > > Had a look in the mirror lately ? > A+ > jml > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Well if Creationism is ludicrous, where's the missing > link between ape and man? > I can see I shamed you enough so you won't be laying your finger over language mistakes. Good! > I happen to believe in evolution and don't find it > troubling at all. I believe Adam and Eve were a > parable, as well as Noah and the Ark. This doesn't > disprove God in any way for me. > Completely agree. What's more, maybe Jesus is also a parable. And the devil, and hell and heaven, and apocalypse, and judgment day, and yes! Maybe god is also a parable. I mean, if you get to decide Adam and Eve were a parable, then I get to decide what is a parable too. Unless you are the pope of your church. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Pretty interesting how that folklore held on for 2000+ years. Pretty powerful folklore. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charlie, > > The Bible is a piece of FOLKLORE, written by HUMANS. > > Jesus' life, as told by the gospels, have an uncanny > similarity with > folklore tales from other cultural traditions. > > It's pretty clear it's all made up. > > HW > > > On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > OK. I'm not "directly" trying to call them "liars" > or anything like that. > > What I am saying is that I do believe there is a > spiritual "Truth" that > > exists. I believe Christianity is the most > accurate interpretation of that > > Truth. Others disagree and claim their religion is > the accurate > > interpretation. Eventually, some will be right and > others wrong. > > > > >Yes, I'm a infidel. > > > > > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons > I don't believe in > > Zeus, > > >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. > > > > OK. What are those reasons? > > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Jesus is a prophet in Islam. > Jesus is the Messiah in Christianity > > To say that Jesus never existed is silly. > Wow! How can we ever dare to compare Charlie's lame and short explanations with this example of clarity, of sound argumentation, of intellectual wisdom? Suddenly everything was so clear to me. Of course! Why didn't Charlie explain it so thoroughly? We should team up, buy you a ticket to Iran and send you there. I'm certain you'll be able to explain and convince all Mohammedans out of their evil ways. We'll have millions of converts in a few months! > > > --- Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 03:13 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >>> Charlie, >>> >>> Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com >>> >>> Then think. >> I viewed the trailer. It appears it's a movie that >> claims Jesus never existed. >> >> This attack on Christianity is not new. It has been >> introduced, debunked, >> re-introduced, re-debunked many times in the past >> 200 or so years (starting >> in the late 1700's). >> >> You may find it interesting to note that the premise >> that Jesus never >> existed is not introduced by historical scholars. >> Usually philosopher's, >> atheists, anti-Christian groups, etc, are the ones >> that like to broach this >> topic. I think the reason this is the case is that >> there is just way too >> much historical evidence that supports Jesus >> Christ's life on Earth. As far >> as I know, there are no accepted scholarly claims >> that Jesus did not exist. >> >> Of course, beyond his existence, the arguments >> immediately start in about >> whether or not he actually did miraculous things, >> what he actually said, >> etc. That's where scholars will start to disagree; >> but they disagree >> primarily because they can't agree on initial >> premises. E.g. some scholars >> flat out refuse to believe any type of 'miracle' can >> ever occur. So, solely >> because of that supposition, they refuse to believe >> most of the recorded >> events in Christ's life. To me that sounds pretty >> silly and intellectually >> dishonest. It would seem better to just evaluate >> things based on what was >> written and the context it was written within. >> Anyway... I'm digressing >> >> I've been through many studies of Biblical, and >> Christian, criticism; the >> comparisons of Christian teachings to >> Greek/Babalonian/Sumerian mythology; >> the comparisons of religions; historical research >> and Biblical >> authenticity; and so on. So when movies like the >> above come out, I don't >> find them very interesting (unless they purport to >> have discovered >> something 'new' - which this one does not as far as >> I can tell). And so I >> just file them under the "Da Vinci Code" category of >> fiction or "Christian >> attack" pieces. >> >> Hmmm That sounded pretty arrogant. I was going >> to go back and delete >> part of that last paragraph, but I decided to leave >> it. I don't mean to >> sound arrogant, but I don't want to give the >> impression that I'm discarding >> opposing views flippantly. >> >> -Charlie >> ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 07:57 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... Hey! Didn't you say we have no control whatsoever over 'god's grace'? So if there's nothing you can do to get it, then there's nothing you can do to refuse it. Or do you question god's omnipotence? >>> ... >>> >>> I don't recall saying that. I've been saying things like we can't save >>> ourselves only God's grace can do that. Is that clearer? >> Then it follows that also God's grace can save us, no matter what, god >> has that power. Or do you deny god's power? > > Nope. I don't deny it. I just think God has told us that He is not going to > do that. I think my other posts have already clarified this. > Please, where in the bible does he say that? > >>> God gave us free will. So we make choices all the time. The most critical >>> choice, IMO, is whether or not to accept that we cannot obtain our own >>> salvation. E.g. we can't work it off, we can't buy it off, we can't >>> "intellectualize" it, etc. We have to accept God's grace, personally. >>> >>> So I don't deny God's Omnipotence, but I do think He uses it where He >>> wants. So maybe He will bring all souls to Him in the end, I don't know. >>> All I know is His words while He was here on Earth say that is not how >> it's >>> going to be. >> Well now you blew it man. He didn't speak, Jesus did all the talking and >> claimed that it was his "father's" way. > > Well, it's my understanding that Christian belief is that Christ is God. So > whatever He spoke, taught, etc was what God wanted us to hear. > I thought he was the 'son' of god. He kept talking about 'my father'. Maybe he was like some football (soccer) players around here who always talk about themselves in the third person. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 07:47 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >>> You are a Christian based on what is in your heart. If you go to a >>> Christian Church every Sunday, donate a lot to charity, help the poor, and >>> offer kindness to strangers, by all outward appearances you are a >>> Christian. However, if while you're doing all that, you are bitter in your > ... > >> Fair enough, there is a buddhist saying that a rose will give you its >> perfume without meaning to be good. I like to interpret it as that it is >> it's nature, that if you are 'good' then you'll have no choice but to do >> 'good' (and vice versa). >> Now, according to your beliefs, does a 'christian' have to believe in >> exactly the same god you do, in exactly the same manner (e.g. let's say >> you don't believe in angels and he does. Or he believes in everything >> except that Mary was a virgin)? What latitude does he have? If he >> accepts god in his heart and he accepts god in his heart and 'knows that >> the grace of god alone is what can save him', is he a christian? > ... > > Well, based on past messages I apparently haven't been able to communicate > my points very well. But I'll give it a try... > > I think the key core of being a Christian is realizing that you can't save > yourself, believing God came to Earth as Jesus Christ, believing He died on > the cross for our sins, believing He rose from the dead, and believing you > can ask Him into your heart to accept God's gift of salvation. > > I think that's the key things. I think the other beliefs come as a person > grows in maturity as a Christian. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily > agree on all things with me; as I've said before, I may have incorrect > interpretations. But, so far, what I've been posting is where I am in my > faith now. > So if someone believes in everything else, god, angels, hell, heaven, can't save yourself, etc. But he doesn't believe that this guy Jesus rose from the dead then he isn't christian. Is that what you're saying? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On 1/26/07, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well if Creationism is ludicrous, where's the missing > link between ape and man? > Had a look in the mirror lately ? A+ jml ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, The very likely probability of Jesus' life being (mostly) a work of fiction has been refuted many times, I know. But usually it has been refuted in the same way as evolutionism has been refuted, usually with silly and non-scientific arguments. For example, you're claiming that scientists address evolutionism gaps by saying alien seeded planet Earth. That is RIDICULOUS. There are scientists that speculate about it, perhaps some even believe on the possibility, but those ideas are very far from being accepted as sound scientific theories. Probably never will. You're putting, as usual, something in scientists' mouth as to easily refute it. Religious people do that all the time. It's pure intellectual dishonesty. It's easy to rebuke lies using another lies. Look, you are stuck in believing things written BY MEN centuries ago, as if they are unquestionable truths. A fairy tale who explains everything with ludicruous ideas. Do you realise you're using ideas written by tribesmen hundreds of years ago as a way to guide your life? And at the same time find that other people who believe in other ancient tribesmen ideas are wrong? Get a clue! On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 03:12 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > >Charlie, > > > >What are you coming up next? That evolution has already been debunked > too? > > > >I hear all the time religious people claiming that there're plenty of > >"scientific" evidence pointing to criationism and that simply is not > true. > >Criationism is a ludicrous lie. > > I'm not really opposed to evolutionary theory. I think it's quite possible > that's it was the mechanism God used to bring us about. The problem I have > with evolution is in a couple areas: first, the most appropriate and best > study for the proof of evolution should be a "historical" science, not a > "biological" science. Correct? Yet most historical evidence is ignored by > evolutionary theorists in favor of trying to explain things in terms of > what "might" be able to happen biologically. Next, even moving into the > "biological" investigations, the problems with probability are ignored. In > other words, as I recall, the mathematical probability that humans would > result from the process of evolution is so minute that it is reasonably > impossible. But that is generally ignored as well by most evolution theory > supporters (but I think some of the evolutionists do acknowledge the > problem, and they generally address it by saying the Earth was seeded by > aliens). These weaknesses of evolutionary theory should be clearly > presented along with the theory itself, but instead it seems only the > "dogmatic" portions of the theory are put forth in classrooms. > > > >I've watched the documentary "The God Who Wasn't there". There was no > need > >for the movie to convince me, because I pretty much already knew what was > in > >there. > > > >I watched "Da Vinci Code" and found it very silly. You don't need to tell > me > >it was a hollywood movie based on a "best-seller" fiction book. > > > >But the "The God Who Wasn't there" is not fiction. It isn't even > >controversial, as it just shows information available elsewhere. > > > >Before discarding the documentary, watch it first. Or are you scared on > >having to THINK FOR YOURSELF and find the truth? > > I thought I explained why I didn't watch it. From what I can tell, like > you > said, they don't present anything new. The claim that Jesus didn't exist > has been put forth in the past and has been refuted (repeatedly). Why > would > I spend money to watch something I already know is incorrect? > > By the way, the reason I sort of lumped it in with "The Da Vinci Code" was > because the author of that book/movie stated he researched it as if it > were > a documentary. When interviewed he was asked what would he change to make > the movie a documentary and he basically said he wouldn't change anything. > So he was trying to present his "research" as sound. Just like what I'm > sure this movie has done as well. I haven't seen, nor will I pay for, > watching the Da Vinci Code movie. I won't pay to watch this one either. If > it comes out on cable or something like that, I'll probably watch it. In > general it's good to know what your enemies are thinking. :-) > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, The Bible is a piece of FOLKLORE, written by HUMANS. Jesus' life, as told by the gospels, have an uncanny similarity with folklore tales from other cultural traditions. It's pretty clear it's all made up. HW On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OK. I'm not "directly" trying to call them "liars" or anything like that. > What I am saying is that I do believe there is a spiritual "Truth" that > exists. I believe Christianity is the most accurate interpretation of that > Truth. Others disagree and claim their religion is the accurate > interpretation. Eventually, some will be right and others wrong. > > >Yes, I'm a infidel. > > > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe in > Zeus, > >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. > > OK. What are those reasons? > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:12 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >Charlie, > >What are you coming up next? That evolution has already been debunked too? > >I hear all the time religious people claiming that there're plenty of >"scientific" evidence pointing to criationism and that simply is not true. >Criationism is a ludicrous lie. I'm not really opposed to evolutionary theory. I think it's quite possible that's it was the mechanism God used to bring us about. The problem I have with evolution is in a couple areas: first, the most appropriate and best study for the proof of evolution should be a "historical" science, not a "biological" science. Correct? Yet most historical evidence is ignored by evolutionary theorists in favor of trying to explain things in terms of what "might" be able to happen biologically. Next, even moving into the "biological" investigations, the problems with probability are ignored. In other words, as I recall, the mathematical probability that humans would result from the process of evolution is so minute that it is reasonably impossible. But that is generally ignored as well by most evolution theory supporters (but I think some of the evolutionists do acknowledge the problem, and they generally address it by saying the Earth was seeded by aliens). These weaknesses of evolutionary theory should be clearly presented along with the theory itself, but instead it seems only the "dogmatic" portions of the theory are put forth in classrooms. >I've watched the documentary "The God Who Wasn't there". There was no need >for the movie to convince me, because I pretty much already knew what was in >there. > >I watched "Da Vinci Code" and found it very silly. You don't need to tell me >it was a hollywood movie based on a "best-seller" fiction book. > >But the "The God Who Wasn't there" is not fiction. It isn't even >controversial, as it just shows information available elsewhere. > >Before discarding the documentary, watch it first. Or are you scared on >having to THINK FOR YOURSELF and find the truth? I thought I explained why I didn't watch it. From what I can tell, like you said, they don't present anything new. The claim that Jesus didn't exist has been put forth in the past and has been refuted (repeatedly). Why would I spend money to watch something I already know is incorrect? By the way, the reason I sort of lumped it in with "The Da Vinci Code" was because the author of that book/movie stated he researched it as if it were a documentary. When interviewed he was asked what would he change to make the movie a documentary and he basically said he wouldn't change anything. So he was trying to present his "research" as sound. Just like what I'm sure this movie has done as well. I haven't seen, nor will I pay for, watching the Da Vinci Code movie. I won't pay to watch this one either. If it comes out on cable or something like that, I'll probably watch it. In general it's good to know what your enemies are thinking. :-) -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:40 PM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >Wow, they certainly taught you how NOT TO THINK very well... No need to be insulting. Maybe I should have been more verbose in my question, so I'll restate it. So you say you reject God for the exact reasons you reject the concept of Zeus, Vishnu, etc. In my thinking I don't reject God, so I don't believe I follow your reasoning. I could perhaps make some guesses, but it would probably be better if you provide your reasons for rejection directly. Does that make it more clear why I "wasn't thinking" when I posted the original question? -Charlie >On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Yes, I'm a infidel. > > > > > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe > in Zeus, > > >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. > > > > OK. What are those reasons? > > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Wow, they certainly taught you how NOT TO THINK very well... On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Yes, I'm a infidel. > > > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe in > Zeus, > >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. > > OK. What are those reasons? > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 02:57 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >" I believe God is real, and the Christian religion is "right", based on >faith, what I've researched, and what He's done in my life. " > >Billions of Muslims and Hindus (among others) can say exactly the same >thing. Your God is no more real than theirs because of your "arguments". OK. I'm not "directly" trying to call them "liars" or anything like that. What I am saying is that I do believe there is a spiritual "Truth" that exists. I believe Christianity is the most accurate interpretation of that Truth. Others disagree and claim their religion is the accurate interpretation. Eventually, some will be right and others wrong. >Yes, I'm a infidel. > >I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe in Zeus, >Vishnu, Osiris, etc. OK. What are those reasons? >I'll bring something that Richard Dawkins said: You're an atheist too, >Charlie. Didn't you know it? You're an atheist regarding all deities from >other religions. You just need to go one God further. OK. That's fine. You can call me an atheist if you want, just make sure you also know I'm a Christian as well. :-) -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:07 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... > > For even more fun, do you deny that God could limit Himself if He so > chose? > > In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, do you think He would > > stick to it? > > > >If he is really omnipotent, and always tells the truth (though that >would be a limitation to his omnipotence), then I think he would never >have the desire to do that as that would put limits to him and hence >he'd no longer be omnipotent (that supposing he is limited by logic, if >he is not then I can say nothing about him, nor can you. That is what >some religions state, that you can say nothing about god). Once you >start playing with concepts like Omnipotence, eternity, etc. you get >into contradictions very easily. ... Yep. Concepts of 'infinity' are beyond our really comprehension. So we end up having a language problem trying to explain and understand these things. And that's one of the reasons some people have given up in believing in God at all. Something that can't fit into their logic/terms simply doesn't exist to them. So, anyway, in regards to these issues, I defer to what Christ taught as opposed to trying to make a syntactically perfect lexical argument. Of course, if you don't believe in Christ, you wouldn't put any weight into what He taught. So, at this point (I'm assuming you don't believe in Christ), you and I are at an impasse to take this discussion any further. But I think we've explained our respective sides clearly enough. I hope I've provided some useful information and I thank you for providing yours. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Well if Creationism is ludicrous, where's the missing link between ape and man? I happen to believe in evolution and don't find it troubling at all. I believe Adam and Eve were a parable, as well as Noah and the Ark. This doesn't disprove God in any way for me. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charlie, > > What are you coming up next? That evolution has > already been debunked too? > > I hear all the time religious people claiming that > there're plenty of > "scientific" evidence pointing to criationism and > that simply is not true. > Criationism is a ludicrous lie. > > I've watched the documentary "The God Who Wasn't > there". There was no need > for the movie to convince me, because I pretty much > already knew what was in > there. > > I watched "Da Vinci Code" and found it very silly. > You don't need to tell me > it was a hollywood movie based on a "best-seller" > fiction book. > > But the "The God Who Wasn't there" is not fiction. > It isn't even > controversial, as it just shows information > available elsewhere. > > Before discarding the documentary, watch it first. > Or are you scared on > having to THINK FOR YOURSELF and find the truth? > > HW > > > > On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > At 03:13 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > > >Charlie, > > > > > >Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com > > > > > >Then think. > > > > I viewed the trailer. It appears it's a movie that > claims Jesus never > > existed. > > > > This attack on Christianity is not new. It has > been introduced, debunked, > > re-introduced, re-debunked many times in the past > 200 or so years > > (starting > > in the late 1700's). > > > > You may find it interesting to note that the > premise that Jesus never > > existed is not introduced by historical scholars. > Usually philosopher's, > > atheists, anti-Christian groups, etc, are the ones > that like to broach > > this > > topic. I think the reason this is the case is that > there is just way too > > much historical evidence that supports Jesus > Christ's life on Earth. As > > far > > as I know, there are no accepted scholarly claims > that Jesus did not > > exist. > > > > Of course, beyond his existence, the arguments > immediately start in about > > whether or not he actually did miraculous things, > what he actually said, > > etc. That's where scholars will start to disagree; > but they disagree > > primarily because they can't agree on initial > premises. E.g. some scholars > > flat out refuse to believe any type of 'miracle' > can ever occur. So, > > solely > > because of that supposition, they refuse to > believe most of the recorded > > events in Christ's life. To me that sounds pretty > silly and intellectually > > dishonest. It would seem better to just evaluate > things based on what was > > written and the context it was written within. > Anyway... I'm > > digressing > > > > I've been through many studies of Biblical, and > Christian, criticism; the > > comparisons of Christian teachings to > Greek/Babalonian/Sumerian mythology; > > the comparisons of religions; historical research > and Biblical > > authenticity; and so on. So when movies like the > above come out, I don't > > find them very interesting (unless they purport to > have discovered > > something 'new' - which this one does not as far > as I can tell). And so I > > just file them under the "Da Vinci Code" category > of fiction or "Christian > > attack" pieces. > > > > Hmmm That sounded pretty arrogant. I was going > to go back and delete > > part of that last paragraph, but I decided to > leave it. I don't mean to > > sound arrogant, but I don't want to give the > impression that I'm > > discarding > > opposing views flippantly. > > > > -Charlie > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 07:57 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... > >> Hey! Didn't you say we have no control whatsoever over 'god's grace'? > >> So if there's nothing you can do to get it, then there's nothing you can > >> do to refuse it. Or do you question god's omnipotence? > > ... > > > > I don't recall saying that. I've been saying things like we can't save > > ourselves only God's grace can do that. Is that clearer? > >Then it follows that also God's grace can save us, no matter what, god >has that power. Or do you deny god's power? Nope. I don't deny it. I just think God has told us that He is not going to do that. I think my other posts have already clarified this. > > God gave us free will. So we make choices all the time. The most critical > > choice, IMO, is whether or not to accept that we cannot obtain our own > > salvation. E.g. we can't work it off, we can't buy it off, we can't > > "intellectualize" it, etc. We have to accept God's grace, personally. > > > > So I don't deny God's Omnipotence, but I do think He uses it where He > > wants. So maybe He will bring all souls to Him in the end, I don't know. > > All I know is His words while He was here on Earth say that is not how > it's > > going to be. > >Well now you blew it man. He didn't speak, Jesus did all the talking and >claimed that it was his "father's" way. Well, it's my understanding that Christian belief is that Christ is God. So whatever He spoke, taught, etc was what God wanted us to hear. So, if by all your postings you're basically trying to say that God is not limited by what the Bible teaches, OK. Just say so. My response is my Christian faith tells me God told mankind what He has done and is planning to do via the Bible. I don't look at that as God now suddenly being "weak" and non-omnipotent. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Jesus is a prophet in Islam. Jesus is the Messiah in Christianity To say that Jesus never existed is silly. --- Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:13 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > >Charlie, > > > >Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com > > > >Then think. > > I viewed the trailer. It appears it's a movie that > claims Jesus never existed. > > This attack on Christianity is not new. It has been > introduced, debunked, > re-introduced, re-debunked many times in the past > 200 or so years (starting > in the late 1700's). > > You may find it interesting to note that the premise > that Jesus never > existed is not introduced by historical scholars. > Usually philosopher's, > atheists, anti-Christian groups, etc, are the ones > that like to broach this > topic. I think the reason this is the case is that > there is just way too > much historical evidence that supports Jesus > Christ's life on Earth. As far > as I know, there are no accepted scholarly claims > that Jesus did not exist. > > Of course, beyond his existence, the arguments > immediately start in about > whether or not he actually did miraculous things, > what he actually said, > etc. That's where scholars will start to disagree; > but they disagree > primarily because they can't agree on initial > premises. E.g. some scholars > flat out refuse to believe any type of 'miracle' can > ever occur. So, solely > because of that supposition, they refuse to believe > most of the recorded > events in Christ's life. To me that sounds pretty > silly and intellectually > dishonest. It would seem better to just evaluate > things based on what was > written and the context it was written within. > Anyway... I'm digressing > > I've been through many studies of Biblical, and > Christian, criticism; the > comparisons of Christian teachings to > Greek/Babalonian/Sumerian mythology; > the comparisons of religions; historical research > and Biblical > authenticity; and so on. So when movies like the > above come out, I don't > find them very interesting (unless they purport to > have discovered > something 'new' - which this one does not as far as > I can tell). And so I > just file them under the "Da Vinci Code" category of > fiction or "Christian > attack" pieces. > > Hmmm That sounded pretty arrogant. I was going > to go back and delete > part of that last paragraph, but I decided to leave > it. I don't mean to > sound arrogant, but I don't want to give the > impression that I'm discarding > opposing views flippantly. > > -Charlie > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, What are you coming up next? That evolution has already been debunked too? I hear all the time religious people claiming that there're plenty of "scientific" evidence pointing to criationism and that simply is not true. Criationism is a ludicrous lie. I've watched the documentary "The God Who Wasn't there". There was no need for the movie to convince me, because I pretty much already knew what was in there. I watched "Da Vinci Code" and found it very silly. You don't need to tell me it was a hollywood movie based on a "best-seller" fiction book. But the "The God Who Wasn't there" is not fiction. It isn't even controversial, as it just shows information available elsewhere. Before discarding the documentary, watch it first. Or are you scared on having to THINK FOR YOURSELF and find the truth? HW On 1/26/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 03:13 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > >Charlie, > > > >Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com > > > >Then think. > > I viewed the trailer. It appears it's a movie that claims Jesus never > existed. > > This attack on Christianity is not new. It has been introduced, debunked, > re-introduced, re-debunked many times in the past 200 or so years > (starting > in the late 1700's). > > You may find it interesting to note that the premise that Jesus never > existed is not introduced by historical scholars. Usually philosopher's, > atheists, anti-Christian groups, etc, are the ones that like to broach > this > topic. I think the reason this is the case is that there is just way too > much historical evidence that supports Jesus Christ's life on Earth. As > far > as I know, there are no accepted scholarly claims that Jesus did not > exist. > > Of course, beyond his existence, the arguments immediately start in about > whether or not he actually did miraculous things, what he actually said, > etc. That's where scholars will start to disagree; but they disagree > primarily because they can't agree on initial premises. E.g. some scholars > flat out refuse to believe any type of 'miracle' can ever occur. So, > solely > because of that supposition, they refuse to believe most of the recorded > events in Christ's life. To me that sounds pretty silly and intellectually > dishonest. It would seem better to just evaluate things based on what was > written and the context it was written within. Anyway... I'm > digressing > > I've been through many studies of Biblical, and Christian, criticism; the > comparisons of Christian teachings to Greek/Babalonian/Sumerian mythology; > the comparisons of religions; historical research and Biblical > authenticity; and so on. So when movies like the above come out, I don't > find them very interesting (unless they purport to have discovered > something 'new' - which this one does not as far as I can tell). And so I > just file them under the "Da Vinci Code" category of fiction or "Christian > attack" pieces. > > Hmmm That sounded pretty arrogant. I was going to go back and delete > part of that last paragraph, but I decided to leave it. I don't mean to > sound arrogant, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm > discarding > opposing views flippantly. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 07:53 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > I don't know. During this discussion I imagined how I would feel if my > > children were killed. Either by some tragedy or by another person. All I > > can say is that I'd be grief-stricken. Maybe because I'll miss them in the > > few years I have remaining here on Earth > >C'mon, you won't miss them the same way as if, say, they'd gone to live >abroad and you'll never see them again. >And if you don't feel that way then it means that your emotions (that >expression of your soul) don't run together with what you claim is your >faith. Ergo your faith is only superficial, it does not encompass the >whole of your soul. I don't think you've thought it through if you believe "children moving abroad" would be the same feeling as them suddenly dying or being killed. I would feel sorrow in both cases, but the latter would be much, much more severe. Now, if you're saying a Christian can never grieve, I don't think you're in agreement with Biblical scripture and Christ's teachings. Also, are you suggesting that once you're a Christian you're suddenly perfect? That every thing you do, feel, and say is going to be perfectly what God would have you do? I'm pretty sure you realize that is not what Christianity teaches either. And if you're calling me a bad Christian, that's OK. I agree with that (to some degree at least). I'm definitely not a perfect Christian. But if you're calling me a hypocrite, then I'll disagree with you. But then I have the advantage of knowing what's in my heart. Anyway, I definitely feel grief when friends and family die. I definitely still fail and sin at times. But even at my lowest moments, I know my salvation rests with Christ and just meditating on that for a while never fails to bring me joy and peace. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:13 AM 1/26/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >Charlie, > >Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com > >Then think. I viewed the trailer. It appears it's a movie that claims Jesus never existed. This attack on Christianity is not new. It has been introduced, debunked, re-introduced, re-debunked many times in the past 200 or so years (starting in the late 1700's). You may find it interesting to note that the premise that Jesus never existed is not introduced by historical scholars. Usually philosopher's, atheists, anti-Christian groups, etc, are the ones that like to broach this topic. I think the reason this is the case is that there is just way too much historical evidence that supports Jesus Christ's life on Earth. As far as I know, there are no accepted scholarly claims that Jesus did not exist. Of course, beyond his existence, the arguments immediately start in about whether or not he actually did miraculous things, what he actually said, etc. That's where scholars will start to disagree; but they disagree primarily because they can't agree on initial premises. E.g. some scholars flat out refuse to believe any type of 'miracle' can ever occur. So, solely because of that supposition, they refuse to believe most of the recorded events in Christ's life. To me that sounds pretty silly and intellectually dishonest. It would seem better to just evaluate things based on what was written and the context it was written within. Anyway... I'm digressing I've been through many studies of Biblical, and Christian, criticism; the comparisons of Christian teachings to Greek/Babalonian/Sumerian mythology; the comparisons of religions; historical research and Biblical authenticity; and so on. So when movies like the above come out, I don't find them very interesting (unless they purport to have discovered something 'new' - which this one does not as far as I can tell). And so I just file them under the "Da Vinci Code" category of fiction or "Christian attack" pieces. Hmmm That sounded pretty arrogant. I was going to go back and delete part of that last paragraph, but I decided to leave it. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm discarding opposing views flippantly. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 07:47 PM 1/25/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > You are a Christian based on what is in your heart. If you go to a > > Christian Church every Sunday, donate a lot to charity, help the poor, and > > offer kindness to strangers, by all outward appearances you are a > > Christian. However, if while you're doing all that, you are bitter in your ... >Fair enough, there is a buddhist saying that a rose will give you its >perfume without meaning to be good. I like to interpret it as that it is >it's nature, that if you are 'good' then you'll have no choice but to do >'good' (and vice versa). >Now, according to your beliefs, does a 'christian' have to believe in >exactly the same god you do, in exactly the same manner (e.g. let's say >you don't believe in angels and he does. Or he believes in everything >except that Mary was a virgin)? What latitude does he have? If he >accepts god in his heart and he accepts god in his heart and 'knows that >the grace of god alone is what can save him', is he a christian? ... Well, based on past messages I apparently haven't been able to communicate my points very well. But I'll give it a try... I think the key core of being a Christian is realizing that you can't save yourself, believing God came to Earth as Jesus Christ, believing He died on the cross for our sins, believing He rose from the dead, and believing you can ask Him into your heart to accept God's gift of salvation. I think that's the key things. I think the other beliefs come as a person grows in maturity as a Christian. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily agree on all things with me; as I've said before, I may have incorrect interpretations. But, so far, what I've been posting is where I am in my faith now. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
LOL http://russellsteapot.com/images/rsgallery/original/Image54.jpg --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, Watch: http://www.thegodmovie.com Then think. HW On 1/25/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wait. I believe Biblical teachings are God's Words. There is a lot of > complexity in that concept I know. This could start the whole thread of > "...the Bible was defined by men..." and "...there are secret writings the > power mongers took out..." etc (that recent Da Vinci Code movie has caused > a lot of stir in this arena, as ridiculous and baseless as the facts in > the > movie were...). Anyway, I don't want to go down the Biblical > authenticity debate road (I'm pressed for time just responding to these > messages). > > So, I do mean I want to submit my sense of fairness to God's. I believe > the > Bible reflects it, but I can't say I understand with complete, 100% > certainty everything contained in the Bible. In the end, I want God's will > to be done regardless of whether or not I've misinterpreted some portion > of > scripture. > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
" I believe God is real, and the Christian religion is "right", based on faith, what I've researched, and what He's done in my life. " Billions of Muslims and Hindus (among others) can say exactly the same thing. Your God is no more real than theirs because of your "arguments". Yes, I'm a infidel. I don't believe in God for the exact same reasons I don't believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris, etc. I'll bring something that Richard Dawkins said: You're an atheist too, Charlie. Didn't you know it? You're an atheist regarding all deities from other religions. You just need to go one God further. HW On 1/25/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe God is real, and the Christian religion is "right", based on > faith, what I've researched, and what He's done in my life. > > I can't recall (that bad memory ya know) if you're a professed atheist or > not. If you are, what makes you think God does not exist? > > -Charlie --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > And God gave you free will to try to lure other people > to Hell. Atheists and Satanists work for the same > boss. I should point I am a monarchical anarchist, it's very difficult for me to take a master. > > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Michael Madigan wrote: >>> Jesus didn't choose his religion. He was born a >> Jew >>> because God chose to have him be a Jew. >>> >>> >> And seemingly god chose you to be an (I should >> end it here) >> >> >> ___ >> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com >> Subscription Maintenance: >> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox >> OT-free version of this list: >> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech >> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, >> are the opinions of the author, and do not >> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement >> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are >> too stupid to see the obvious. >> > > > Saddam - Hung for the Holidays > http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Hmmm gloating over a man who killed millions upon > millions of people doesn't strike me as being wrong. Wrong? I was talking about christian or un-christian. And it is a very un-christian attitude. > And I don't think the tears that you shed for him > strikes me as being right. Hahaha! Another blatant demonstration of your one track mind. I shed no tears at all for the tyrant (though he died in a brave manner, I respect him for that). > > Laughing at your shortcomings is downright funny. > > > "you going down for sure". "I not be going down, my > brotha" > > > >> Gloating over another human being's death is a good >> or bad deed? >> Spreading hate feelings and words, is it a good or >> bad deed? >> Laughing at other people's shortcomings, is it a >> good or bad deed? >> So, I guess I'll convert on that last call. You >> going down for sure. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com >> Subscription Maintenance: >> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox >> OT-free version of this list: >> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech >> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, >> are the opinions of the author, and do not >> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement >> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are >> too stupid to see the obvious. >> > > > Saddam - Hung for the Holidays > http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Satan was created by God and given free will. > Actually the angel's name was Lucifer. I think Satan comes from the arab word Shaitan which means demon. > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Charlie Coleman wrote: >>> At 08:51 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >>> > Some things in Biblical teaching don't sound >> 'fair' to me. But I will > submit my sense of fairness to God's, Nnnnope! You will submit your sense of fairness >> to the biblical teachings. Not necessarily the same thing. >>> Wait. I believe Biblical teachings are God's >> Words. There is a lot of >>> complexity in that concept I know. This could >> start the whole thread of >>> "...the Bible was defined by men..." and "...there >> are secret writings the >>> power mongers took out..." etc (that recent Da >> Vinci Code movie has caused >>> a lot of stir in this arena, as ridiculous and >> baseless as the facts in the >>> movie were...). Anyway, I don't want to go >> down the Biblical >>> authenticity debate road (I'm pressed for time >> just responding to these >>> messages). >>> >>> So, I do mean I want to submit my sense of >> fairness to God's. I believe the >>> Bible reflects it, but I can't say I understand >> with complete, 100% >>> certainty everything contained in the Bible. In >> the end, I want God's will >>> to be done regardless of whether or not I've >> misinterpreted some portion of >>> scripture. >>> > whereas you reject God's existence > because he doesn't fit your sense of logic. BTW, I don't reject god's existence, I just think >> the god you described is too limited. You froze him/her/it in time, you >> won't allow him/her/it to change. You won't allow him/her/it free will >> (which he/her/it grants you). You want to state what he/her/it can or >> cannot do. You want a god to your own size. I think you're headed for a big >> surprise, or not (you might just die). >>> I hope I didn't offend. My general phrase of " >> because he doesn't fit >>> your sense of logic..." was directed toward the >> general group of atheists >>> (well, maybe to Ed because I think I was >> responding to his text directly). >>> But you bring up an interesting point. And I would >> say all believers >>> struggle with it. We put expectations on God based >> on our own >>> understanding. But because of our current world, >> we can only interpret and >>> suppose based on what we know. It may end up I'll >> meet Buddah and Muhammed >>> in Heaven and we'll have a long discussion on how >> I misunderstood things >>> down on Earth. All I can say is the beliefs I've >> arrived at so far have >>> come from my study of the Bible, research into >> other religions, and lots of >>> prayer. >>> >>> For even more fun, do you deny that God could >> limit Himself if He so chose? >>> In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, >> do you think He would >>> stick to it? >>> >> If he is really omnipotent, and always tells the >> truth (though that >> would be a limitation to his omnipotence), then I >> think he would never >> have the desire to do that as that would put limits >> to him and hence >> he'd no longer be omnipotent (that supposing he is >> limited by logic, if >> he is not then I can say nothing about him, nor can >> you. That is what >> some religions state, that you can say nothing about >> god). Once you >> start playing with concepts like Omnipotence, >> eternity, etc. you get >> into contradictions very easily. >> >> Taking it yet to another level. Have you noticed >> that everything is >> within god, that god is everywhere, that everything >> came from and >> through god? Then it follows that the devil also >> came from and through >> god, and god is also in hell. And before you go into >> uncharted territory >> I'd like to remind you that god gave humans free >> will, he did not give >> free will to his angels. >> >> >>> -Charlie >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
And God gave you free will to try to lure other people to Hell. Atheists and Satanists work for the same boss. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: > > Jesus didn't choose his religion. He was born a > Jew > > because God chose to have him be a Jew. > > > > > > And seemingly god chose you to be an (I should > end it here) > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > Saddam - Hung for the Holidays http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Hmmm gloating over a man who killed millions upon millions of people doesn't strike me as being wrong. And I don't think the tears that you shed for him strikes me as being right. Laughing at your shortcomings is downright funny. "you going down for sure". "I not be going down, my brotha" > Gloating over another human being's death is a good > or bad deed? > Spreading hate feelings and words, is it a good or > bad deed? > Laughing at other people's shortcomings, is it a > good or bad deed? > So, I guess I'll convert on that last call. You > going down for sure. > > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > Saddam - Hung for the Holidays http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > Jesus didn't choose his religion. He was born a Jew > because God chose to have him be a Jew. > > And seemingly god chose you to be an (I should end it here) ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > This "Good deeds" vs "saved by grace" argument is > mostly moot because I can't think of anyone who was > "saved by grace" and wasn't doing good deeds. > So if your 'big' brain can't think of it then it is out of god's power. > Additionally, a Catholic doing good deeds is probably > already saved by grace. > > The only time this comes into play is when an Atheist > or pagan does "good deeds". Here we have a paradox. Check out the meaning of 'paradox'. Maybe you'll get to figure what you are implying here (or, considering your lack of manners, maybe you meant to imply it). > It will be up to God to decide what he does with that > person. Or another example is a miserable person who > attends weekly services, then resumes his miserable > ways. Hey! Stop looking in the mirror! > > what constitutes a "good deed"? Having an abortion, > then volunteering at a soup kitchen doesn't seem to > have any redeming value, unless that person has asked > God's forgiveness for the abortion. We know that > every evil man has probably done good deeds. > Gloating over another human being's death is a good or bad deed? Spreading hate feelings and words, is it a good or bad deed? Laughing at other people's shortcomings, is it a good or bad deed? So, I guess I'll convert on that last call. You going down for sure. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Satan was created by God and given free will. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charlie Coleman wrote: > > At 08:51 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > > >>> Some things in Biblical teaching don't sound > 'fair' to me. But I will > >>> submit my sense of fairness to God's, > >> Nnnnope! You will submit your sense of fairness > to the biblical > >> teachings. Not necessarily the same thing. > > > > Wait. I believe Biblical teachings are God's > Words. There is a lot of > > complexity in that concept I know. This could > start the whole thread of > > "...the Bible was defined by men..." and "...there > are secret writings the > > power mongers took out..." etc (that recent Da > Vinci Code movie has caused > > a lot of stir in this arena, as ridiculous and > baseless as the facts in the > > movie were...). Anyway, I don't want to go > down the Biblical > > authenticity debate road (I'm pressed for time > just responding to these > > messages). > > > > So, I do mean I want to submit my sense of > fairness to God's. I believe the > > Bible reflects it, but I can't say I understand > with complete, 100% > > certainty everything contained in the Bible. In > the end, I want God's will > > to be done regardless of whether or not I've > misinterpreted some portion of > > scripture. > > > >>> whereas you reject God's existence > >>> because he doesn't fit your sense of logic. > >> BTW, I don't reject god's existence, I just think > the god you described > >> is too limited. You froze him/her/it in time, you > won't allow him/her/it > >> to change. You won't allow him/her/it free will > (which he/her/it grants > >> you). You want to state what he/her/it can or > cannot do. You want a god > >> to your own size. I think you're headed for a big > surprise, or not (you > >> might just die). > > > > I hope I didn't offend. My general phrase of " > because he doesn't fit > > your sense of logic..." was directed toward the > general group of atheists > > (well, maybe to Ed because I think I was > responding to his text directly). > > > > But you bring up an interesting point. And I would > say all believers > > struggle with it. We put expectations on God based > on our own > > understanding. But because of our current world, > we can only interpret and > > suppose based on what we know. It may end up I'll > meet Buddah and Muhammed > > in Heaven and we'll have a long discussion on how > I misunderstood things > > down on Earth. All I can say is the beliefs I've > arrived at so far have > > come from my study of the Bible, research into > other religions, and lots of > > prayer. > > > > For even more fun, do you deny that God could > limit Himself if He so chose? > > In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, > do you think He would > > stick to it? > > > > If he is really omnipotent, and always tells the > truth (though that > would be a limitation to his omnipotence), then I > think he would never > have the desire to do that as that would put limits > to him and hence > he'd no longer be omnipotent (that supposing he is > limited by logic, if > he is not then I can say nothing about him, nor can > you. That is what > some religions state, that you can say nothing about > god). Once you > start playing with concepts like Omnipotence, > eternity, etc. you get > into contradictions very easily. > > Taking it yet to another level. Have you noticed > that everything is > within god, that god is everywhere, that everything > came from and > through god? Then it follows that the devil also > came from and through > god, and god is also in hell. And before you go into > uncharted territory > I'd like to remind you that god gave humans free > will, he did not give > free will to his angels. > > > > -Charlie > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 03:13 PM 1/24/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: >> >>> I'm simply doing what I'm called to do by my faith. >> I bet you love it when others do what they are called to do by >> their >> faith, too! >> >> Jihad, anyone? ;-) > > > Well, you should be all for that Jihad stuff right? I mean, by the process > of natural selection, the strongest, smartest, most adaptable, etc should > be the only ones that survive. Mate, it works on species, and over millions of years. And if you've observed nature it favors diversity. That way the species may adapt when conditions change. When an insect 'develops' resistance to a poison, that's bullshit, the ones without resistance die and the ones who had the resistance in them get to breed, so next generation is resistant. But nothing 'develops'. This is to illustrate the high survival value of diversity. So if Jihad exterminates those different then humans will be less diverse (culturally in this case) and will have probably lost survival capital. > If Jihadists kill a few billion others, the > human race as a whole will be stronger for it right? Or if the rest of the > human race finds the resolve to kill all Jihadists, then we'd be all the > stronger for that too. > > Now that would be an interesting bumper sticker, "Atheists for Jihad!" > > ;-) > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:51 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > >>> Some things in Biblical teaching don't sound 'fair' to me. But I will >>> submit my sense of fairness to God's, >> Nnnnope! You will submit your sense of fairness to the biblical >> teachings. Not necessarily the same thing. > > Wait. I believe Biblical teachings are God's Words. There is a lot of > complexity in that concept I know. This could start the whole thread of > "...the Bible was defined by men..." and "...there are secret writings the > power mongers took out..." etc (that recent Da Vinci Code movie has caused > a lot of stir in this arena, as ridiculous and baseless as the facts in the > movie were...). Anyway, I don't want to go down the Biblical > authenticity debate road (I'm pressed for time just responding to these > messages). > > So, I do mean I want to submit my sense of fairness to God's. I believe the > Bible reflects it, but I can't say I understand with complete, 100% > certainty everything contained in the Bible. In the end, I want God's will > to be done regardless of whether or not I've misinterpreted some portion of > scripture. > >>> whereas you reject God's existence >>> because he doesn't fit your sense of logic. >> BTW, I don't reject god's existence, I just think the god you described >> is too limited. You froze him/her/it in time, you won't allow him/her/it >> to change. You won't allow him/her/it free will (which he/her/it grants >> you). You want to state what he/her/it can or cannot do. You want a god >> to your own size. I think you're headed for a big surprise, or not (you >> might just die). > > I hope I didn't offend. My general phrase of " because he doesn't fit > your sense of logic..." was directed toward the general group of atheists > (well, maybe to Ed because I think I was responding to his text directly). > > But you bring up an interesting point. And I would say all believers > struggle with it. We put expectations on God based on our own > understanding. But because of our current world, we can only interpret and > suppose based on what we know. It may end up I'll meet Buddah and Muhammed > in Heaven and we'll have a long discussion on how I misunderstood things > down on Earth. All I can say is the beliefs I've arrived at so far have > come from my study of the Bible, research into other religions, and lots of > prayer. > > For even more fun, do you deny that God could limit Himself if He so chose? > In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, do you think He would > stick to it? > If he is really omnipotent, and always tells the truth (though that would be a limitation to his omnipotence), then I think he would never have the desire to do that as that would put limits to him and hence he'd no longer be omnipotent (that supposing he is limited by logic, if he is not then I can say nothing about him, nor can you. That is what some religions state, that you can say nothing about god). Once you start playing with concepts like Omnipotence, eternity, etc. you get into contradictions very easily. Taking it yet to another level. Have you noticed that everything is within god, that god is everywhere, that everything came from and through god? Then it follows that the devil also came from and through god, and god is also in hell. And before you go into uncharted territory I'd like to remind you that god gave humans free will, he did not give free will to his angels. > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Jesus didn't choose his religion. He was born a Jew because God chose to have him be a Jew. --- David Crooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:33 PM Charlie > Coleman wrote: > > >In a general sense, a lot of religions describe > similar 'good deeds' > that should be done by the >believers. That's about > it where the > similarity ends. > >Some of them call for forced conversion of > non-believers, others say > simply to speak the message >and let things end up > where they may. Some > specifically target other religions as the 'enemy', > >etc. A while back, my Sunday School class studied > different religions > for several months. We > >even went and talked with people of other religions > to make sure our > understanding of their > > beliefs was correct. > > I disagree, and still maintain that there are more > similarities. > > >One thing we found that sets Christianity apart is > that it teaches the > "good deeds" or doing the >"right deeds" are not > what will save you. > > I never thought I needed to be saved. I prefer to > be more of spiritual > person and not follow any religion dogma. Of > course, my karma ran over > your dogma. :-) > > >I'd like to discuss your last sentence. You think > it's "screwed up" to > have a belief system that >where some believe > they're right and others > are wrong. > >I'll say it MUST be that way if you accept there is > an ultimate TRUTH. > Here is a rough > >comparison: back in the day of Columbus, some > thought the Earth was > flat, but others thought it >was a round. Both > thought the others were > wrong. Eventually one of them turned out to be wrong > > >because there was an ultimate Truth to the matter. > The problem at this > point is religion is in a >realm other than the > physical. We don't KNOW > what's really there. Just like in Columbus's day, > >until someone was able to find a way to prove it, > they didn't know for > sure. So, assuming there >is an ultimate spiritual > Truth, things will > end up that one (and maybe more) religions were > >"right" and other > religions were "wrong". > > You can have your truth and I will have mine. I > believe that if Jesus > was alive today he would not belong to any religion. > People join > religions for many reasons and I know if they were > not aligned to the > teachings then they would not be in that religion. > Many people go to > the same church their parents go to and others (the > rebels) jump the > other direction to other religions or none at all. > As you said earlier, > God gave us freewill. > > David L. Crooks > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:42 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... >>> Nope. By my definition you are not a Christian because you refuse to >> accept >>> God's Grace into your heart. >> Hey! Didn't you say we have no control whatsoever over 'god's grace'? >> So if there's nothing you can do to get it, then there's nothing you can >> do to refuse it. Or do you question god's omnipotence? > ... > > I don't recall saying that. I've been saying things like we can't save > ourselves only God's grace can do that. Is that clearer? Then it follows that also God's grace can save us, no matter what, god has that power. Or do you deny god's power? > > God gave us free will. So we make choices all the time. The most critical > choice, IMO, is whether or not to accept that we cannot obtain our own > salvation. E.g. we can't work it off, we can't buy it off, we can't > "intellectualize" it, etc. We have to accept God's grace, personally. > > So I don't deny God's Omnipotence, but I do think He uses it where He > wants. So maybe He will bring all souls to Him in the end, I don't know. > All I know is His words while He was here on Earth say that is not how it's > going to be. Well now you blew it man. He didn't speak, Jesus did all the talking and claimed that it was his "father's" way. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
This "Good deeds" vs "saved by grace" argument is mostly moot because I can't think of anyone who was "saved by grace" and wasn't doing good deeds. Additionally, a Catholic doing good deeds is probably already saved by grace. The only time this comes into play is when an Atheist or pagan does "good deeds". Here we have a paradox. It will be up to God to decide what he does with that person. Or another example is a miserable person who attends weekly services, then resumes his miserable ways. what constitutes a "good deed"? Having an abortion, then volunteering at a soup kitchen doesn't seem to have any redeming value, unless that person has asked God's forgiveness for the abortion. We know that every evil man has probably done good deeds. Mafia bosses donating large sums of stolen money to the church are doing evil deeds and good deeds. They aren't fooling anybody, not even themselves. Homosexual priests who are molesting alter boys have little chance of getting into heaven unless they too are saved and stop molesting little boys. --- Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:18 PM 1/25/2007 -0500, David Crooks wrote: > > > >First, wouldn't you agree that in general > everyone that has beliefs view > > others with opposing > > >beliefs as wrong? The Hindus, Muslims, ancient > Greeks, etc would all > > view my beliefs as wrong > > >just as I view their beliefs as wrong. That is > essentially the nature of > > a 'belief' in my > > >opinion. So if you're implying I'm being > unreasonable by thinking others > > are wrong, I don't > > >agree. > > > > > > > >If you really study the religions, I think you > would find that they have > >more in common than not. I think religions is all > about control. I also > >think a religion that is based on a belief system > that we are right and > >everyone is wrong is very screwed up! > > In a general sense, a lot of religions describe > similar 'good deeds' that > should be done by the believers. That's about it > where the similarity ends. > Some of them call for forced conversion of > non-believers, others say simply > to speak the message and let things end up where > they may. Some > specifically target other religions as the 'enemy', > etc. A while back, my > Sunday School class studied different religions for > several months. We even > went and talked with people of other religions to > make sure our > understanding of their beliefs was correct. > > One thing we found that sets Christianity apart is > that it teaches the > "good deeds" or doing the "right deeds" are not what > will save you. > > I'd like to discuss your last sentence. You think > it's "screwed up" to have > a belief system that where some believe they're > right and others are wrong. > I'll say it MUST be that way if you accept there is > an ultimate TRUTH. Here > is a rough comparison: back in the day of Columbus, > some thought the Earth > was flat, but others thought it was a round. Both > thought the others were > wrong. Eventually one of them turned out to be wrong > because there was an > ultimate Truth to the matter. The problem at this > point is religion is in a > realm other than the physical. We don't KNOW what's > really there. Just like > in Columbus's day, until someone was able to find a > way to prove it, they > didn't know for sure. So, assuming there is an > ultimate spiritual Truth, > things will end up that one (and maybe more) > religions were "right" and > other religions were "wrong". > > -Charlie > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:39 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... >>> First, we are still human. What happens in our physical life hits us just >>> like it does anyone else. Next, Christian belief is that life is sacred. >>> When tragedies strike, our spirit mourns for the loss. >> But if there's no loss, nor tragedy. In no time you'll meet them in >> heaven, and you may be certain they'll be there. Or is your faith so flimsy? > ... > > > > I don't know. During this discussion I imagined how I would feel if my > children were killed. Either by some tragedy or by another person. All I > can say is that I'd be grief-stricken. Maybe because I'll miss them in the > few years I have remaining here on Earth. C'mon, you won't miss them the same way as if, say, they'd gone to live abroad and you'll never see them again. And if you don't feel that way then it means that your emotions (that expression of your soul) don't run together with what you claim is your faith. Ergo your faith is only superficial, it does not encompass the whole of your soul. > Maybe because I feel the loss for > not being able to teach and enjoy things with them for now. That kind of > thing. If they were killed by some other person, say a drunk driver, I > would want justice. And I would try, and pray for God's help, to forgive them. > > So, if you think feeling that way means I have a "flimsy" faith, OK. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:56 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >>> Of course that's not correct. You have to be sincere >>> in your confession and avoid doing the same wrong >>> things. >>> >> Just ignorant bullshit. There have been Popes that granted certified >> pardons for all sins in exchange for money or some political favor. And >> what a Pope says, goes. > > Well, you see, that kind of action is what has done great harm to people's > views of Christianity. Non-believers love to cite such acts in history as > proof the religion is meaningless. E.g. just give enough money and you'll > buy your way to heaven. That's just about as far from Christianity as you > can get. > > Unfortunately, I think the Papcy (if that's the correct term) is where the > Catholic Church has gone the most wrong. As I understand it, the > traditional Catholic teaching is that the Pope is almost synonymous with > Christ when He was on Earth. Not exactly, the teaching says that the Pope is always right when he speaks about dogma (or something like that. Anyone with better info?). > I think that is wrong, and actually flies in > the face of Biblical teaching. I apologize if I'm misstating the Catholic > view. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:29 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... > >> I think it has been asked of you many times in this thread, but >> considering you are seemingly contradicting your statements I'll ask you >> once more. >> ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN PRECEPTS OR >> BECAUSE YOU ACT ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN PRECEPTS? > ... > > I don't see how they're contradictory. Maybe some of my other posts have > already clarified this for you but I'll say it again. > > Making a judgement (a guess) about whether or not someone else is a > Christian basically requires you look at their actions, words, etc. But > that judgement (guess) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the > person is actually a Christian. > > You are a Christian based on what is in your heart. If you go to a > Christian Church every Sunday, donate a lot to charity, help the poor, and > offer kindness to strangers, by all outward appearances you are a > Christian. However, if while you're doing all that, you are bitter in your > heart, and you don't really love God, and the only reason you keep doing > these things is because you think they'll "buy" you into heaven then, nope, > you are not a Christian. At the same time, consider a bum on the street > begging for money, and who maybe stealing sometimes. But in his heart he's > trying to let God control his life and he knows that the grace of God alone > is what can save him; he is a Christian. > Fair enough, there is a buddhist saying that a rose will give you its perfume without meaning to be good. I like to interpret it as that it is it's nature, that if you are 'good' then you'll have no choice but to do 'good' (and vice versa). Now, according to your beliefs, does a 'christian' have to believe in exactly the same god you do, in exactly the same manner (e.g. let's say you don't believe in angels and he does. Or he believes in everything except that Mary was a virgin)? What latitude does he have? If he accepts god in his heart and he accepts god in his heart and 'knows that the grace of god alone is what can save him', is he a christian? > So, 'behaving' like a Christian nor 'believing' in Christian precepts will > save you. It's what you've taken into your heart. If you think that means > 'believe', then OK. But I think it goes beyond belief. You've got to take > God's offer of grace personally and let it transform you. When someone does > that, the "good works" usually start happening. > > Again, all this is just my opinion and understanding of the Gospel message. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:33 PM Charlie Coleman wrote: >In a general sense, a lot of religions describe similar 'good deeds' that should be done by the >believers. That's about it where the similarity ends. >Some of them call for forced conversion of non-believers, others say simply to speak the message >and let things end up where they may. Some specifically target other religions as the 'enemy', >etc. A while back, my Sunday School class studied different religions for several months. We >even went and talked with people of other religions to make sure our understanding of their > beliefs was correct. I disagree, and still maintain that there are more similarities. >One thing we found that sets Christianity apart is that it teaches the "good deeds" or doing the >"right deeds" are not what will save you. I never thought I needed to be saved. I prefer to be more of spiritual person and not follow any religion dogma. Of course, my karma ran over your dogma. :-) >I'd like to discuss your last sentence. You think it's "screwed up" to have a belief system that >where some believe they're right and others are wrong. >I'll say it MUST be that way if you accept there is an ultimate TRUTH. Here is a rough >comparison: back in the day of Columbus, some thought the Earth was flat, but others thought it >was a round. Both thought the others were wrong. Eventually one of them turned out to be wrong >because there was an ultimate Truth to the matter. The problem at this point is religion is in a >realm other than the physical. We don't KNOW what's really there. Just like in Columbus's day, >until someone was able to find a way to prove it, they didn't know for sure. So, assuming there >is an ultimate spiritual Truth, things will end up that one (and maybe more) religions were >"right" and other religions were "wrong". You can have your truth and I will have mine. I believe that if Jesus was alive today he would not belong to any religion. People join religions for many reasons and I know if they were not aligned to the teachings then they would not be in that religion. Many people go to the same church their parents go to and others (the rebels) jump the other direction to other religions or none at all. As you said earlier, God gave us freewill. David L. Crooks ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:18 PM 1/25/2007 -0500, David Crooks wrote: > >First, wouldn't you agree that in general everyone that has beliefs view > others with opposing > >beliefs as wrong? The Hindus, Muslims, ancient Greeks, etc would all > view my beliefs as wrong > >just as I view their beliefs as wrong. That is essentially the nature of > a 'belief' in my > >opinion. So if you're implying I'm being unreasonable by thinking others > are wrong, I don't > >agree. > > > >If you really study the religions, I think you would find that they have >more in common than not. I think religions is all about control. I also >think a religion that is based on a belief system that we are right and >everyone is wrong is very screwed up! In a general sense, a lot of religions describe similar 'good deeds' that should be done by the believers. That's about it where the similarity ends. Some of them call for forced conversion of non-believers, others say simply to speak the message and let things end up where they may. Some specifically target other religions as the 'enemy', etc. A while back, my Sunday School class studied different religions for several months. We even went and talked with people of other religions to make sure our understanding of their beliefs was correct. One thing we found that sets Christianity apart is that it teaches the "good deeds" or doing the "right deeds" are not what will save you. I'd like to discuss your last sentence. You think it's "screwed up" to have a belief system that where some believe they're right and others are wrong. I'll say it MUST be that way if you accept there is an ultimate TRUTH. Here is a rough comparison: back in the day of Columbus, some thought the Earth was flat, but others thought it was a round. Both thought the others were wrong. Eventually one of them turned out to be wrong because there was an ultimate Truth to the matter. The problem at this point is religion is in a realm other than the physical. We don't KNOW what's really there. Just like in Columbus's day, until someone was able to find a way to prove it, they didn't know for sure. So, assuming there is an ultimate spiritual Truth, things will end up that one (and maybe more) religions were "right" and other religions were "wrong". -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
The Pope is the head of the Church. He only represents Christ on earth. He is infallible (speaks the truth) in matters of faith only. That has occurred only a few times in the history of the Church. Otherwise the Pope is no different than you or I. He may have been elevated to a Christ like figure by some but he is only a temporal leader of the Church. The problem with the Catholic Church is insecure male ego. I have been involved with several Catholic organizations and ultimately I leave because insecure male ego gets in the way of the mission. Christ was inclusive and wanted community. Unfortunately I see power hungry exclusivity and sometimes the demise of strong healthy vibrant community. If you can see through the s**t, a jewel of faith shines through and grows in brilliance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:22 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle At 08:56 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > Of course that's not correct. You have to be sincere > > in your confession and avoid doing the same wrong > > things. > > > >Just ignorant bullshit. There have been Popes that granted certified >pardons for all sins in exchange for money or some political favor. And >what a Pope says, goes. Well, you see, that kind of action is what has done great harm to people's views of Christianity. Non-believers love to cite such acts in history as proof the religion is meaningless. E.g. just give enough money and you'll buy your way to heaven. That's just about as far from Christianity as you can get. Unfortunately, I think the Papcy (if that's the correct term) is where the Catholic Church has gone the most wrong. As I understand it, the traditional Catholic teaching is that the Pope is almost synonymous with Christ when He was on Earth. I think that is wrong, and actually flies in the face of Biblical teaching. I apologize if I'm misstating the Catholic view. -Charlie [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:16 PM 1/24/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > At that time I think I said doing good deeds is meaningless in terms of > salvation, > > but that doing good deeds is still a commendable thing. Whether or not > > there is a God we should all try to do good deeds when we can. > > Well, uh... that's what makes them "good", right? > > To me it seems that you are waffling on the use of the term >'salvation'. I've always understood that the product of salvation was >entrance into Heaven, and that those who are not saved are destined >for an eternity of suffering. Is that correct? Or can you get into >Heaven without being saved? I think the term we're having the problem with is "Good". I'm saying that no measure of "good" gets you into heaven. But doing good deeds from a purely humanistic, non-God existence, point of view, is still a commendable trait. But the definition of "good" could become a problem between believers and non-believers. For example, non-believers may think abortions are "good" because it can ease burdens on young people not ready for children. Believers may think abortion is "bad" because it ends a life that God created (and, of course non-believers don't think of it as "life" yet, and don't recognize God as having a role). So when we use phrases like "good" deeds, there will always be some discontinuity. To answer your last questions directly, it's my understanding that you must be saved to get into Heaven. And for those not saved, there would be eternal suffering. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 03:13 PM 1/24/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: >On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: > > > I'm simply doing what I'm called to do by my faith. > > I bet you love it when others do what they are called to do by > their >faith, too! > > Jihad, anyone? ;-) Well, you should be all for that Jihad stuff right? I mean, by the process of natural selection, the strongest, smartest, most adaptable, etc should be the only ones that survive. If Jihadists kill a few billion others, the human race as a whole will be stronger for it right? Or if the rest of the human race finds the resolve to kill all Jihadists, then we'd be all the stronger for that too. Now that would be an interesting bumper sticker, "Atheists for Jihad!" ;-) -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:51 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > Some things in Biblical teaching don't sound 'fair' to me. But I will > > submit my sense of fairness to God's, > >Nnnnope! You will submit your sense of fairness to the biblical >teachings. Not necessarily the same thing. Wait. I believe Biblical teachings are God's Words. There is a lot of complexity in that concept I know. This could start the whole thread of "...the Bible was defined by men..." and "...there are secret writings the power mongers took out..." etc (that recent Da Vinci Code movie has caused a lot of stir in this arena, as ridiculous and baseless as the facts in the movie were...). Anyway, I don't want to go down the Biblical authenticity debate road (I'm pressed for time just responding to these messages). So, I do mean I want to submit my sense of fairness to God's. I believe the Bible reflects it, but I can't say I understand with complete, 100% certainty everything contained in the Bible. In the end, I want God's will to be done regardless of whether or not I've misinterpreted some portion of scripture. > > whereas you reject God's existence > > because he doesn't fit your sense of logic. > >BTW, I don't reject god's existence, I just think the god you described >is too limited. You froze him/her/it in time, you won't allow him/her/it >to change. You won't allow him/her/it free will (which he/her/it grants >you). You want to state what he/her/it can or cannot do. You want a god >to your own size. I think you're headed for a big surprise, or not (you >might just die). I hope I didn't offend. My general phrase of " because he doesn't fit your sense of logic..." was directed toward the general group of atheists (well, maybe to Ed because I think I was responding to his text directly). But you bring up an interesting point. And I would say all believers struggle with it. We put expectations on God based on our own understanding. But because of our current world, we can only interpret and suppose based on what we know. It may end up I'll meet Buddah and Muhammed in Heaven and we'll have a long discussion on how I misunderstood things down on Earth. All I can say is the beliefs I've arrived at so far have come from my study of the Bible, research into other religions, and lots of prayer. For even more fun, do you deny that God could limit Himself if He so chose? In other words, if He made a Covenant with humans, do you think He would stick to it? -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:42 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... > > Nope. By my definition you are not a Christian because you refuse to > accept > > God's Grace into your heart. > >Hey! Didn't you say we have no control whatsoever over 'god's grace'? >So if there's nothing you can do to get it, then there's nothing you can >do to refuse it. Or do you question god's omnipotence? ... I don't recall saying that. I've been saying things like we can't save ourselves only God's grace can do that. Is that clearer? God gave us free will. So we make choices all the time. The most critical choice, IMO, is whether or not to accept that we cannot obtain our own salvation. E.g. we can't work it off, we can't buy it off, we can't "intellectualize" it, etc. We have to accept God's grace, personally. So I don't deny God's Omnipotence, but I do think He uses it where He wants. So maybe He will bring all souls to Him in the end, I don't know. All I know is His words while He was here on Earth say that is not how it's going to be. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:39 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... > > First, we are still human. What happens in our physical life hits us just > > like it does anyone else. Next, Christian belief is that life is sacred. > > When tragedies strike, our spirit mourns for the loss. > >But if there's no loss, nor tragedy. In no time you'll meet them in >heaven, and you may be certain they'll be there. Or is your faith so flimsy? ... I don't know. During this discussion I imagined how I would feel if my children were killed. Either by some tragedy or by another person. All I can say is that I'd be grief-stricken. Maybe because I'll miss them in the few years I have remaining here on Earth. Maybe because I feel the loss for not being able to teach and enjoy things with them for now. That kind of thing. If they were killed by some other person, say a drunk driver, I would want justice. And I would try, and pray for God's help, to forgive them. So, if you think feeling that way means I have a "flimsy" faith, OK. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:56 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > > Of course that's not correct. You have to be sincere > > in your confession and avoid doing the same wrong > > things. > > > >Just ignorant bullshit. There have been Popes that granted certified >pardons for all sins in exchange for money or some political favor. And >what a Pope says, goes. Well, you see, that kind of action is what has done great harm to people's views of Christianity. Non-believers love to cite such acts in history as proof the religion is meaningless. E.g. just give enough money and you'll buy your way to heaven. That's just about as far from Christianity as you can get. Unfortunately, I think the Papcy (if that's the correct term) is where the Catholic Church has gone the most wrong. As I understand it, the traditional Catholic teaching is that the Pope is almost synonymous with Christ when He was on Earth. I think that is wrong, and actually flies in the face of Biblical teaching. I apologize if I'm misstating the Catholic view. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:03 PM Charlie Coleman wrote: >First, wouldn't you agree that in general everyone that has beliefs view others with opposing >beliefs as wrong? The Hindus, Muslims, ancient Greeks, etc would all view my beliefs as wrong >just as I view their beliefs as wrong. That is essentially the nature of a 'belief' in my >opinion. So if you're implying I'm being unreasonable by thinking others are wrong, I don't >agree. If you really study the religions, I think you would find that they have more in common than not. I think religions is all about control. I also think a religion that is based on a belief system that we are right and everyone is wrong is very screwed up! David L. Crooks ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:29 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... >I think it has been asked of you many times in this thread, but >considering you are seemingly contradicting your statements I'll ask you >once more. >ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN PRECEPTS OR >BECAUSE YOU ACT ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN PRECEPTS? ... I don't see how they're contradictory. Maybe some of my other posts have already clarified this for you but I'll say it again. Making a judgement (a guess) about whether or not someone else is a Christian basically requires you look at their actions, words, etc. But that judgement (guess) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the person is actually a Christian. You are a Christian based on what is in your heart. If you go to a Christian Church every Sunday, donate a lot to charity, help the poor, and offer kindness to strangers, by all outward appearances you are a Christian. However, if while you're doing all that, you are bitter in your heart, and you don't really love God, and the only reason you keep doing these things is because you think they'll "buy" you into heaven then, nope, you are not a Christian. At the same time, consider a bum on the street begging for money, and who maybe stealing sometimes. But in his heart he's trying to let God control his life and he knows that the grace of God alone is what can save him; he is a Christian. So, 'behaving' like a Christian nor 'believing' in Christian precepts will save you. It's what you've taken into your heart. If you think that means 'believe', then OK. But I think it goes beyond belief. You've got to take God's offer of grace personally and let it transform you. When someone does that, the "good works" usually start happening. Again, all this is just my opinion and understanding of the Gospel message. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 04:06 PM 1/24/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >Charlie, > >Do you think the ancient Greeks, with their spectacular achievements, were >all fooling themselves by believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc? > >What about ancient Egyptians? > >What about thousands of years of chinese history and cultural tradition, >human beings doing good and bad things without your God? > >Do you realise hindus, buddhists, muslims, etc are all themselves 100% sure >that their beliefs are true? Why are they wrong and you're right? Just >because you want? > >What makes you think your God is more real than the ancient ones? First, wouldn't you agree that in general everyone that has beliefs view others with opposing beliefs as wrong? The Hindus, Muslims, ancient Greeks, etc would all view my beliefs as wrong just as I view their beliefs as wrong. That is essentially the nature of a 'belief' in my opinion. So if you're implying I'm being unreasonable by thinking others are wrong, I don't agree. There may be some people who try to 'merge' all the beliefs and say "... we're all going to the same place...", but if you look at the religions they're trying to 'merge', the core foundations just don't agree. So I'm not one of those who believe everything will be OK as long as you believe in something. Again, I could be wrong, but that is my belief. I believe there has always only been 1 God. Like I said before, how He deals with people is at a personal level. So, did all those "non-Christians" in ancient times go to Hell? I have no idea. It doesn't seem fair to me that they would, but I don't know. I believe God is real, and the Christian religion is "right", based on faith, what I've researched, and what He's done in my life. I can't recall (that bad memory ya know) if you're a professed atheist or not. If you are, what makes you think God does not exist? -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I think it's some third-world language. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What language is "Portugese"? LOL > > > On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > > I try to stay out of the Portugese mail groups. > > > > Are you afraid of answering a simple question? > > Will you be as unforgiving when an english > speaking person makes some > > other mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > > > > > > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Michael Madigan wrote: > > >>> I still doesn't understand why you doesn't > > >> understand. > > >> Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making > a > > >> mistake while writing > > >> in english. Wonder how are your portuguese > lessons > > >> going. BTW, will you > > >> be as unforgiving when an english speaking > person > > >> makes some other > > >> mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > >> > > >> > > >>> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>> > > I still doesn't understand why a so loving > god > > >> would > > prefer to burn us alive > > rather than simply ignore us. > > > > > > On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > >> They'll all have their chance to accept > Christ > > right > > >> before the end. > > >> > > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know > where > > you've been sent before > > > I make my decision. > > > > > > > > >> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >>> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must > believe, > > >>> otherwise you're unfaithful > > >>> and will burn in hell. > > >>> > > >>> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > > >>> buddhists, etc are all deluded > > >>> persons? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> wrote: > > At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe > wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen > the > > Cook > > >>> wrote: > > >>> And thus you are perfectly > content to > > >>> love and worship a being > > who > > >>> would take someone like me and torture > > >> them > > >>> for all eternity? Wow, if > > >>> that's what your view of Christianity > > >>> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > >>> a part of it. > > >> I think it's just the opposite Ed. We > are > > >>> supposed to love all, and > > > if you > > >> agree with us then great. If not, you > are > > >>> still in God's hands > > > and that is > > >> good enough for me. > > > That's fine, but it sure isn't > what > > >>> Charlie is stating. > > According > > > to > > > him, you can love all, but if you accept > his > > >>> personal view of things, > > > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the > opposite > > of > > >>> what you state. > > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought > we > > were > > >>> talking about our beliefs > > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I > say > > that > > >>> I have faith in God to > > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I > > can't > > >>> judge for sure or not > > someone else's salvation? > > > > What I've been trying to do is put forth > what > > I > > >>> believe is the path to > > salvation. According to my beliefs there > is > > only > > >>> one way, through Jesus > > Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > > exactly > > >>> what Steve said in that, > > in the end, individuals are in God's > hands. I > > >>> don't think that means God > > will automatically 'save' everyone in the > > world. I > > >>> think it means He'll > > deal with each person on an individual > basis. > > How > > >>> that person responds to > > Him determines their future. But, again, > > >> maybe > > I'm > > >>> wrong. > > -Charlie > > > > >> > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
What language is "Portugese"? LOL On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > I try to stay out of the Portugese mail groups. > > Are you afraid of answering a simple question? > Will you be as unforgiving when an english speaking person makes some > other mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > > > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Michael Madigan wrote: > >>> I still doesn't understand why you doesn't > >> understand. > >> Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making a > >> mistake while writing > >> in english. Wonder how are your portuguese lessons > >> going. BTW, will you > >> be as unforgiving when an english speaking person > >> makes some other > >> mistake, or will they be forgiven? > >> > >> > >>> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > I still doesn't understand why a so loving god > >> would > prefer to burn us alive > rather than simply ignore us. > > > On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Michael Madigan wrote: > >> They'll all have their chance to accept Christ > right > >> before the end. > >> > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where > you've been sent before > > I make my decision. > > > > > >> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > >>> otherwise you're unfaithful > >>> and will burn in hell. > >>> > >>> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > >>> buddhists, etc are all deluded > >>> persons? > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the > Cook > >>> wrote: > >>> And thus you are perfectly content to > >>> love and worship a being > who > >>> would take someone like me and torture > >> them > >>> for all eternity? Wow, if > >>> that's what your view of Christianity > >>> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > >>> a part of it. > >> I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > >>> supposed to love all, and > > if you > >> agree with us then great. If not, you are > >>> still in God's hands > > and that is > >> good enough for me. > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > >>> Charlie is stating. > According > > to > > him, you can love all, but if you accept his > >>> personal view of things, > > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite > of > >>> what you state. > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we > were > >>> talking about our beliefs > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say > that > >>> I have faith in God to > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I > can't > >>> judge for sure or not > someone else's salvation? > > What I've been trying to do is put forth what > I > >>> believe is the path to > salvation. According to my beliefs there is > only > >>> one way, through Jesus > Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > exactly > >>> what Steve said in that, > in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > >>> don't think that means God > will automatically 'save' everyone in the > world. I > >>> think it means He'll > deal with each person on an individual basis. > How > >>> that person responds to > Him determines their future. But, again, > >> maybe > I'm > >>> wrong. > -Charlie > > >> > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > I try to stay out of the Portugese mail groups. Are you afraid of answering a simple question? Will you be as unforgiving when an english speaking person makes some other mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Michael Madigan wrote: >>> I still doesn't understand why you doesn't >> understand. >> Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making a >> mistake while writing >> in english. Wonder how are your portuguese lessons >> going. BTW, will you >> be as unforgiving when an english speaking person >> makes some other >> mistake, or will they be forgiven? >> >> >>> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I still doesn't understand why a so loving god >> would prefer to burn us alive rather than simply ignore us. On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: >> They'll all have their chance to accept Christ right >> before the end. >> > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where you've been sent before > I make my decision. > > >> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, >>> otherwise you're unfaithful >>> and will burn in hell. >>> >>> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, >>> buddhists, etc are all deluded >>> persons? >>> >>> >>> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook >>> wrote: >>> And thus you are perfectly content to >>> love and worship a being who >>> would take someone like me and torture >> them >>> for all eternity? Wow, if >>> that's what your view of Christianity >>> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not >>> a part of it. >> I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are >>> supposed to love all, and > if you >> agree with us then great. If not, you are >>> still in God's hands > and that is >> good enough for me. > That's fine, but it sure isn't what >>> Charlie is stating. According > to > him, you can love all, but if you accept his >>> personal view of things, > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of >>> what you state. Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were >>> talking about our beliefs here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that >>> I have faith in God to do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't >>> judge for sure or not someone else's salvation? What I've been trying to do is put forth what I >>> believe is the path to salvation. According to my beliefs there is only >>> one way, through Jesus Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly >>> what Steve said in that, in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I >>> don't think that means God will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I >>> think it means He'll deal with each person on an individual basis. How >>> that person responds to Him determines their future. But, again, >> maybe I'm >>> wrong. -Charlie >> ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Funny thing is that Madandgay all the time writes things like "precidensy" and isn't even aware of it... LOL Well, not a surprise coming from a guy who clearly is uneducated but who tries to teach "science" lessons to Krystine and Ed (both REALLY trained in science)... Probably Madandgay has a degree on angel hierarchy studies ROTFL On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > I still doesn't understand why you doesn't understand. > > > > Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making a mistake while writing > in english. Wonder how are your portuguese lessons going. BTW, will you > be as unforgiving when an english speaking person makes some other > mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would > >> prefer to burn us alive > >> rather than simply ignore us. > >> > >> > >> On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> Michael Madigan wrote: > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ > >> right > before the end. > > >>> Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where > >> you've been sent before > >>> I make my decision. > >>> > >>> > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > > You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > > otherwise you're unfaithful > > and will burn in hell. > > > > BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > > buddhists, etc are all deluded > > persons? > > > > > > On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > >>> On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the > >> Cook > > wrote: > > And thus you are perfectly content to > > love and worship a being > >> who > > would take someone like me and torture them > > for all eternity? Wow, if > > that's what your view of Christianity > > involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > a part of it. > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > > supposed to love all, and > >>> if you > agree with us then great. If not, you are > > still in God's hands > >>> and that is > good enough for me. > >>> That's fine, but it sure isn't what > > Charlie is stating. > >> According > >>> to > >>> him, you can love all, but if you accept his > > personal view of things, > >>> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite > >> of > > what you state. > >> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we > >> were > > talking about our beliefs > >> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say > >> that > > I have faith in God to > >> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I > >> can't > > judge for sure or not > >> someone else's salvation? > >> > >> What I've been trying to do is put forth what > >> I > > believe is the path to > >> salvation. According to my beliefs there is > >> only > > one way, through Jesus > >> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > >> exactly > > what Steve said in that, > >> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > > don't think that means God > >> will automatically 'save' everyone in the > >> world. I > > think it means He'll > >> deal with each person on an individual basis. > >> How > > that person responds to > >> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe > >> I'm > > wrong. > >> -Charlie > >> > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I try to stay out of the Portugese mail groups. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: > > I still doesn't understand why you doesn't > understand. > > > > Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making a > mistake while writing > in english. Wonder how are your portuguese lessons > going. BTW, will you > be as unforgiving when an english speaking person > makes some other > mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I still doesn't understand why a so loving god > would > >> prefer to burn us alive > >> rather than simply ignore us. > >> > >> > >> On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> Michael Madigan wrote: > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ > >> right > before the end. > > >>> Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where > >> you've been sent before > >>> I make my decision. > >>> > >>> > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > > You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > > otherwise you're unfaithful > > and will burn in hell. > > > > BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > > buddhists, etc are all deluded > > persons? > > > > > > On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > >>> On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the > >> Cook > > wrote: > > And thus you are perfectly content to > > love and worship a being > >> who > > would take someone like me and torture > them > > for all eternity? Wow, if > > that's what your view of Christianity > > involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > a part of it. > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > > supposed to love all, and > >>> if you > agree with us then great. If not, you are > > still in God's hands > >>> and that is > good enough for me. > >>> That's fine, but it sure isn't what > > Charlie is stating. > >> According > >>> to > >>> him, you can love all, but if you accept his > > personal view of things, > >>> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite > >> of > > what you state. > >> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we > >> were > > talking about our beliefs > >> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say > >> that > > I have faith in God to > >> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I > >> can't > > judge for sure or not > >> someone else's salvation? > >> > >> What I've been trying to do is put forth what > >> I > > believe is the path to > >> salvation. According to my beliefs there is > >> only > > one way, through Jesus > >> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > >> exactly > > what Steve said in that, > >> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > > don't think that means God > >> will automatically 'save' everyone in the > >> world. I > > think it means He'll > >> deal with each person on an individual basis. > >> How > > that person responds to > >> Him determines their future. But, again, > maybe > >> I'm > > wrong. > >> -Charlie > >> > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > I still doesn't understand why you doesn't understand. > Wow! You caught Helio, who is Brazilian, making a mistake while writing in english. Wonder how are your portuguese lessons going. BTW, will you be as unforgiving when an english speaking person makes some other mistake, or will they be forgiven? > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would >> prefer to burn us alive >> rather than simply ignore us. >> >> >> On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Michael Madigan wrote: They'll all have their chance to accept Christ >> right before the end. >>> Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where >> you've been sent before >>> I make my decision. >>> >>> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: > You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > otherwise you're unfaithful > and will burn in hell. > > BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > buddhists, etc are all deluded > persons? > > > On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: >>> On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the >> Cook > wrote: > And thus you are perfectly content to > love and worship a being >> who > would take someone like me and torture them > for all eternity? Wow, if > that's what your view of Christianity > involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > a part of it. I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > supposed to love all, and >>> if you agree with us then great. If not, you are > still in God's hands >>> and that is good enough for me. >>> That's fine, but it sure isn't what > Charlie is stating. >> According >>> to >>> him, you can love all, but if you accept his > personal view of things, >>> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite >> of > what you state. >> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we >> were > talking about our beliefs >> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say >> that > I have faith in God to >> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I >> can't > judge for sure or not >> someone else's salvation? >> >> What I've been trying to do is put forth what >> I > believe is the path to >> salvation. According to my beliefs there is >> only > one way, through Jesus >> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe >> exactly > what Steve said in that, >> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > don't think that means God >> will automatically 'save' everyone in the >> world. I > think it means He'll >> deal with each person on an individual basis. >> How > that person responds to >> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe >> I'm > wrong. >> -Charlie >> ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > I'm sure you're too arrogant to take the offer. > Unless you're going to hell... > > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Michael Madigan wrote: >>> They'll all have their chance to accept Christ >> right >>> before the end. >>> >> Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where >> you've been sent before >> I make my decision. >> >> >>> --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, otherwise you're unfaithful and will burn in hell. BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, buddhists, etc are all deluded persons? On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote: And thus you are perfectly content to love and worship a being > who would take someone like me and torture them for all eternity? Wow, if that's what your view of Christianity involves, I'm sure glad I'm not a part of it. >>> I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are supposed to love all, and >> if you >>> agree with us then great. If not, you are still in God's hands >> and that is >>> good enough for me. >> That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is stating. > According >> to >> him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things, >> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state. > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were talking about our beliefs > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say >> that I have faith in God to > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't judge for sure or not > someone else's salvation? > > What I've been trying to do is put forth what I believe is the path to > salvation. According to my beliefs there is only one way, through Jesus > Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe >> exactly what Steve said in that, > in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I don't think that means God > will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. >> I think it means He'll > deal with each person on an individual basis. >> How that person responds to > Him determines their future. But, again, maybe >> I'm wrong. > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I still doesn't understand why you doesn't understand. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would > prefer to burn us alive > rather than simply ignore us. > > > On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ > right > > > before the end. > > > > > > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where > you've been sent before > > I make my decision. > > > > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > >> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > > >> otherwise you're unfaithful > > >> and will burn in hell. > > >> > > >> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > > >> buddhists, etc are all deluded > > >> persons? > > >> > > >> > > >> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the > Cook > > >> wrote: > > >> And thus you are perfectly content to > > >> love and worship a being > > >>> who > > >> would take someone like me and torture them > > >> for all eternity? Wow, if > > >> that's what your view of Christianity > > >> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > >> a part of it. > > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > > >> supposed to love all, and > > if you > > > agree with us then great. If not, you are > > >> still in God's hands > > and that is > > > good enough for me. > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > > >> Charlie is stating. > > >>> According > > to > > him, you can love all, but if you accept his > > >> personal view of things, > > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite > of > > >> what you state. > > >>> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we > were > > >> talking about our beliefs > > >>> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say > that > > >> I have faith in God to > > >>> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I > can't > > >> judge for sure or not > > >>> someone else's salvation? > > >>> > > >>> What I've been trying to do is put forth what > I > > >> believe is the path to > > >>> salvation. According to my beliefs there is > only > > >> one way, through Jesus > > >>> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > exactly > > >> what Steve said in that, > > >>> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > > >> don't think that means God > > >>> will automatically 'save' everyone in the > world. I > > >> think it means He'll > > >>> deal with each person on an individual basis. > How > > >> that person responds to > > >>> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe > I'm > > >> wrong. > > >>> -Charlie > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I'm sure you're too arrogant to take the offer. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: > > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ > right > > before the end. > > > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where > you've been sent before > I make my decision. > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > >> otherwise you're unfaithful > >> and will burn in hell. > >> > >> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > >> buddhists, etc are all deluded > >> persons? > >> > >> > >> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook > >> wrote: > >> And thus you are perfectly content to > >> love and worship a being > >>> who > >> would take someone like me and torture them > >> for all eternity? Wow, if > >> that's what your view of Christianity > >> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > >> a part of it. > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > >> supposed to love all, and > if you > > agree with us then great. If not, you are > >> still in God's hands > and that is > > good enough for me. > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > >> Charlie is stating. > >>> According > to > him, you can love all, but if you accept his > >> personal view of things, > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of > >> what you state. > >>> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were > >> talking about our beliefs > >>> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say > that > >> I have faith in God to > >>> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't > >> judge for sure or not > >>> someone else's salvation? > >>> > >>> What I've been trying to do is put forth what I > >> believe is the path to > >>> salvation. According to my beliefs there is only > >> one way, through Jesus > >>> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe > exactly > >> what Steve said in that, > >>> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > >> don't think that means God > >>> will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. > I > >> think it means He'll > >>> deal with each person on an individual basis. > How > >> that person responds to > >>> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe > I'm > >> wrong. > >>> -Charlie > >>> > >>> > >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Helio W. wrote: > I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would prefer to burn > us alive > rather than simply ignore us. Or deliberately make us ignorant of the one thing we need to save ourselves, and then punish us for his own design choices. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Fixed: I still don't understand why a so loving god would prefer to burn us alive rather than simply ignore us. On 1/24/07, Helio W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would prefer to burn us > alive rather than simply ignore us. > > > On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ right > > > before the end. > > > > > > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where you've been sent before > > I make my decision. > > > > > > > --- "Helio W." < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > > >> otherwise you're unfaithful > > >> and will burn in hell. > > >> > > >> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > > >> buddhists, etc are all deluded > > >> persons? > > >> > > >> > > >> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook > > >> wrote: > > >> And thus you are perfectly content to > > >> love and worship a being > > >>> who > > >> would take someone like me and torture them > > >> for all eternity? Wow, if > > >> that's what your view of Christianity > > >> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > >> a part of it. > > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > > >> supposed to love all, and > > if you > > > agree with us then great. If not, you are > > >> still in God's hands > > and that is > > > good enough for me. > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > > >> Charlie is stating. > > >>> According > > to > > him, you can love all, but if you accept his > > >> personal view of things, > > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of > > >> what you state. > > >>> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were > > >> talking about our beliefs > > >>> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that > > >> I have faith in God to > > >>> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't > > >> judge for sure or not > > >>> someone else's salvation? > > >>> > > >>> What I've been trying to do is put forth what I > > >> believe is the path to > > >>> salvation. According to my beliefs there is only > > >> one way, through Jesus > > >>> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly > > >> what Steve said in that, > > >>> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > > >> don't think that means God > > >>> will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I > > >> think it means He'll > > >>> deal with each person on an individual basis. How > > >> that person responds to > > >>> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm > > >> wrong. > > >>> -Charlie > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
I still doesn't understand why a so loving god would prefer to burn us alive rather than simply ignore us. On 1/24/07, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ right > > before the end. > > > > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where you've been sent before > I make my decision. > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > >> otherwise you're unfaithful > >> and will burn in hell. > >> > >> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > >> buddhists, etc are all deluded > >> persons? > >> > >> > >> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook > >> wrote: > >> And thus you are perfectly content to > >> love and worship a being > >>> who > >> would take someone like me and torture them > >> for all eternity? Wow, if > >> that's what your view of Christianity > >> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > >> a part of it. > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > >> supposed to love all, and > if you > > agree with us then great. If not, you are > >> still in God's hands > and that is > > good enough for me. > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > >> Charlie is stating. > >>> According > to > him, you can love all, but if you accept his > >> personal view of things, > you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of > >> what you state. > >>> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were > >> talking about our beliefs > >>> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that > >> I have faith in God to > >>> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't > >> judge for sure or not > >>> someone else's salvation? > >>> > >>> What I've been trying to do is put forth what I > >> believe is the path to > >>> salvation. According to my beliefs there is only > >> one way, through Jesus > >>> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly > >> what Steve said in that, > >>> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > >> don't think that means God > >>> will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I > >> think it means He'll > >>> deal with each person on an individual basis. How > >> that person responds to > >>> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm > >> wrong. > >>> -Charlie > >>> > >>> > >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Michael Madigan wrote: > They'll all have their chance to accept Christ right > before the end. > Wow! That's wonderful! Please let me know where you've been sent before I make my decision. > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, >> otherwise you're unfaithful >> and will burn in hell. >> >> BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, >> buddhists, etc are all deluded >> persons? >> >> >> On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook >> wrote: >> And thus you are perfectly content to >> love and worship a being >>> who >> would take someone like me and torture them >> for all eternity? Wow, if >> that's what your view of Christianity >> involves, I'm sure glad I'm not >> a part of it. > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are >> supposed to love all, and if you > agree with us then great. If not, you are >> still in God's hands and that is > good enough for me. That's fine, but it sure isn't what >> Charlie is stating. >>> According to him, you can love all, but if you accept his >> personal view of things, you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of >> what you state. >>> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were >> talking about our beliefs >>> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that >> I have faith in God to >>> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't >> judge for sure or not >>> someone else's salvation? >>> >>> What I've been trying to do is put forth what I >> believe is the path to >>> salvation. According to my beliefs there is only >> one way, through Jesus >>> Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly >> what Steve said in that, >>> in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I >> don't think that means God >>> will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I >> think it means He'll >>> deal with each person on an individual basis. How >> that person responds to >>> Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm >> wrong. >>> -Charlie >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: > At that time I > think I said doing good deeds is meaningless in terms of salvation, > but > that doing good deeds is still a commendable thing. Whether or not > there is > a God we should all try to do good deeds when we can. Well, uh... that's what makes them "good", right? To me it seems that you are waffling on the use of the term 'salvation'. I've always understood that the product of salvation was entrance into Heaven, and that those who are not saved are destined for an eternity of suffering. Is that correct? Or can you get into Heaven without being saved? -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: > I'm simply doing what I'm called to do by my faith. I bet you love it when others do what they are called to do by their faith, too! Jihad, anyone? ;-) -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
They'll all have their chance to accept Christ right before the end. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, > otherwise you're unfaithful > and will burn in hell. > > BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, > buddhists, etc are all deluded > persons? > > > On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > >On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook > wrote: > > > > > > >> And thus you are perfectly content to > love and worship a being > > who > > > >> would take someone like me and torture them > for all eternity? Wow, if > > > >> that's what your view of Christianity > involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > > >> a part of it. > > > > > > > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are > supposed to love all, and > > > if you > > > > agree with us then great. If not, you are > still in God's hands > > > and that is > > > > good enough for me. > > > > > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what > Charlie is stating. > > According > > > to > > >him, you can love all, but if you accept his > personal view of things, > > >you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of > what you state. > > > > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were > talking about our beliefs > > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that > I have faith in God to > > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't > judge for sure or not > > someone else's salvation? > > > > What I've been trying to do is put forth what I > believe is the path to > > salvation. According to my beliefs there is only > one way, through Jesus > > Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly > what Steve said in that, > > in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I > don't think that means God > > will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I > think it means He'll > > deal with each person on an individual basis. How > that person responds to > > Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm > wrong. > > > > -Charlie > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Charlie, Do you think the ancient Greeks, with their spectacular achievements, were all fooling themselves by believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc? What about ancient Egyptians? What about thousands of years of chinese history and cultural tradition, human beings doing good and bad things without your God? Do you realise hindus, buddhists, muslims, etc are all themselves 100% sure that their beliefs are true? Why are they wrong and you're right? Just because you want? What makes you think your God is more real than the ancient ones? On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 02:03 PM 1/24/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: > > >You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, otherwise you're unfaithful > >and will burn in hell. > > > >BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, buddhists, etc are all deluded > >persons? > > I don't mean to sound cruel, but yes, I do believe the beliefs of the > Hindus, Buddhists, etc are not correct. But I can't say for sure what is > in > their heart. If you are born into a Hindu environment, and you never hear > anything but Hindu teaching all your life, how could God condemn that > person the hell? It doesn't sound fair to me. Again, all I can say is I > have faith and trust in God to do what is right and just. > > But I do believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. When I > talk with Hindus (Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, etc) I just want to let > them > know what I believe. I don't call them stupid or jump up and down telling > them they're going to hell (ya, I know, Christians may have a reputation > for doing that). I'm simply doing what I'm called to do by my faith. If > they tell me to take a hike, I will, no offense taken. It's up to God to > work what he wants with that person. Maybe they'll remain in their > religion > and maybe that's OK with God, I really don't know. All I can do is let > others know about what I believe. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 02:03 PM 1/24/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, otherwise you're unfaithful >and will burn in hell. > >BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, buddhists, etc are all deluded >persons? I don't mean to sound cruel, but yes, I do believe the beliefs of the Hindus, Buddhists, etc are not correct. But I can't say for sure what is in their heart. If you are born into a Hindu environment, and you never hear anything but Hindu teaching all your life, how could God condemn that person the hell? It doesn't sound fair to me. Again, all I can say is I have faith and trust in God to do what is right and just. But I do believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. When I talk with Hindus (Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, etc) I just want to let them know what I believe. I don't call them stupid or jump up and down telling them they're going to hell (ya, I know, Christians may have a reputation for doing that). I'm simply doing what I'm called to do by my faith. If they tell me to take a hike, I will, no offense taken. It's up to God to work what he wants with that person. Maybe they'll remain in their religion and maybe that's OK with God, I really don't know. All I can do is let others know about what I believe. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 01:42 PM 1/24/2007 -0200, Helio W. wrote: >You sure do have bad memory, Charlie. ... Heh. Yep. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about that. :-) -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 10:55 AM 1/24/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote:
>On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
>
> >> That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is
> stating. According to
> >> him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things,
> >> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state.
> >
> > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were talking about our beliefs
> > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that I have faith in God to
> > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't judge for sure or not
> > someone else's salvation?
>
> You said that unless someone accepts Christ as their Savior, then
>anything else they do in their life is pointless. You did make clear
>that this is your personal belief, but so did I ("his personal view").
Well, that's not an exact quote. And I think that was taken from a
different thread when we were talking about "good deeds". At that time I
think I said doing good deeds is meaningless in terms of salvation, but
that doing good deeds is still a commendable thing. Whether or not there is
a God we should all try to do good deeds when we can.
Does that make it clearer?
It sounds like I should stop posting because I just can't seem to get my
point across... :-(
-Charlie
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
You can't be wrong Charlie. You must believe, otherwise you're unfaithful and will burn in hell. BTW, do you think that billions of hindus, buddhists, etc are all deluded persons? On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > >On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote: > > > > >> And thus you are perfectly content to love and worship a being > who > > >> would take someone like me and torture them for all eternity? Wow, if > > >> that's what your view of Christianity involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > > >> a part of it. > > > > > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are supposed to love all, and > > if you > > > agree with us then great. If not, you are still in God's hands > > and that is > > > good enough for me. > > > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is stating. > According > > to > >him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things, > >you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state. > > Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were talking about our beliefs > here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that I have faith in God to > do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't judge for sure or not > someone else's salvation? > > What I've been trying to do is put forth what I believe is the path to > salvation. According to my beliefs there is only one way, through Jesus > Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly what Steve said in that, > in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I don't think that means God > will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I think it means He'll > deal with each person on an individual basis. How that person responds to > Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm wrong. > > -Charlie > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
>> That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is stating.
>> According to
>> him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things,
>> you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state.
>
> Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were talking about our
> beliefs
> here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that I have faith in
> God to
> do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't judge for sure or not
> someone else's salvation?
You said that unless someone accepts Christ as their Savior, then
anything else they do in their life is pointless. You did make clear
that this is your personal belief, but so did I ("his personal view").
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 10:38 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: >On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote: > > >> And thus you are perfectly content to love and worship a being who > >> would take someone like me and torture them for all eternity? Wow, if > >> that's what your view of Christianity involves, I'm sure glad I'm not > >> a part of it. > > > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are supposed to love all, and > if you > > agree with us then great. If not, you are still in God's hands > and that is > > good enough for me. > > That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is stating. According > to >him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things, >you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state. Whoa! Have I been that obtuse? I thought we were talking about our beliefs here so everything is 'opinion'. Didn't I say that I have faith in God to do what is right and just? Didn't I say I can't judge for sure or not someone else's salvation? What I've been trying to do is put forth what I believe is the path to salvation. According to my beliefs there is only one way, through Jesus Christ. Maybe I'm wrong. I firmly believe exactly what Steve said in that, in the end, individuals are in God's hands. I don't think that means God will automatically 'save' everyone in the world. I think it means He'll deal with each person on an individual basis. How that person responds to Him determines their future. But, again, maybe I'm wrong. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
You sure do have bad memory, Charlie. On 1/24/07, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 08:07 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > ... > > > No no no. I was not trying to say or imply that all Christians are > > good. In > > > fact, I think I made that very clear later on. > > > > > > It seemed to me someone (Richardo?) > > > >Nope. 'Richardo' is innocent of what you claim. Blaming the wrong > american. > ... > > I wasn't sure. That's why the name was in parenthesis with a question > mark. > No 'blame' intended. > > -Charlie > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 09:12 PM 1/23/2007 -0600, Stephen the Cook wrote: ... >Did anyone feel the earth quake? Charlie and I agree. LOL! And for those of you who have said they've never witnessed miracle, well, you just have. :-) >It's the personal relationship with god that creates the Christian, and not >the ceremony of attending gatherings. ... Indeed! Why can't I seem to learn to state things as succinctly as that? -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
At 08:07 PM 1/23/2007 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: ... > > No no no. I was not trying to say or imply that all Christians are > good. In > > fact, I think I made that very clear later on. > > > > It seemed to me someone (Richardo?) > >Nope. 'Richardo' is innocent of what you claim. Blaming the wrong american. ... I wasn't sure. That's why the name was in parenthesis with a question mark. No 'blame' intended. -Charlie ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Ricardo Aráoz <> wrote: > There are two meanings of 'love all'. One would be 'Love none', the > other would be love every single person. > If that's the case, if follows you love me. Speaking of which... I'm > short of money right now I haven't won the powerball either :( Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "A good way to judge people is by observing how they treat those who can do them absolutely no good." ---Unknown http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/648 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 11:04 AM ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
Stephen the Cook wrote: > Ed Leafe <> wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote: >> >>> Nope. By my definition you are not a Christian because you refuse to >>> accept God's Grace into your heart. You flat out reject there is a >>> God at all (IIRC). Of course, these are my assumptions based on past >>> dialogs and I could be wrong. >>> >>> You do good works, help others, etc. That makes you a 'good person' >>> IMO. And, in fact, if I met you on the street and saw what you do for >>> others and actually heard you refer to Christ in a positive light, I >>> may indeed say I think you are a Christian if I were asked. But then >>> if I'd have seen your other statements about being an atheist, etc, >>> I'd have to say at that point you were not a Christian. >> And thus you are perfectly content to love and worship a being who >> would take someone like me and torture them for all eternity? Wow, if >> that's what your view of Christianity involves, I'm sure glad I'm not >> a part of it. > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are supposed to love all, and if you > agree with us then great. If not, you are still in God's hands and that is > good enough for me. > There are two meanings of 'love all'. One would be 'Love none', the other would be love every single person. If that's the case, if follows you love me. Speaking of which... I'm short of money right now > > Stephen Russell > DBA / .Net Developer > > Memphis TN 38115 > 901.246-0159 > > "A good way to judge people is by observing how they treat those who > can do them absolutely no good." ---Unknown > > http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Gonzales warns judges not to meddle
On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote: >> And thus you are perfectly content to love and worship a being who >> would take someone like me and torture them for all eternity? Wow, if >> that's what your view of Christianity involves, I'm sure glad I'm not >> a part of it. > > I think it's just the opposite Ed. We are supposed to love all, > and if you > agree with us then great. If not, you are still in God's hands and > that is > good enough for me. That's fine, but it sure isn't what Charlie is stating. According to him, you can love all, but if you accept his personal view of things, you will burn in Hell. Exactly the opposite of what you state. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
