Poor, poor pitiful us

"Dave Thompson" <abre.DeleteThis@thedoor.com> wrote in message
news:115lq6v416uhl3c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org> wrote in message
> news:115jbiqh02m311e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:3uui519iprsmfftvmll3dm5v6nqf717s62@4ax.com...
> >> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org> wrote:
> >> >The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
> >> >christians
> >> >is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God. It
> > would
> >> >stand
> >> >to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place
where
> >> >he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
> > against
> >> >an
> >> >omnipotent Lord.
> >>
> >> True.
> >>
> >> But if one suddenly loses one's belief in said omnipotence, or even in
> >> the existence of Jesus Christ, because one has gained some
> >> contradictory information or insight, then one would have no reason to
> >> remain Christian.
> >>
> >> The belief of the young in Christ is a belief often deriving in part
> >> from naivete, or parental indoctrination. When people grow up and
> >> gain independence, they often gain access to new sources of
> >> information and ideas, and it is these things that can lead to a loss
> >> of faith.
> >>
> >> Or they may simply by growing up lose their childlike faith in lots of
> >> things, in which case a childlike faith in an invisible God is an easy
> >> one to lose.
> >>
> >> > So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
> > conditions.
> >> >
> >> >A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
> > therefore
> >> > possible to escape His jurisdiction.
> >>
> >> Backwards. The loss of an already held belief is what usually
> >> happens. You seem to be assuming that a belief cannot be lost.
> >>
> >> >B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
> >> >
> >> >Logically, neither of these conditions could be present in a
christian.
> >>
> >> Religious faith isn't logical in the first place,
> >
> > Mine is.
> >
> >> so that may be part of your mistake.
> >
> > Perhaps so. I came to Christ as an adult, throught a long learning
> > process, involving mostly rational thought.
>
> What part of your belief is rational? Rational being based on observable
> reality.

Rational means "consistent with or based on reason" with that definition,
all of my belief is rational. This particular discussion we are heading
toward
could get long and complicated. There's no point in going any further
if you are just interested in proving me wrong, but if you are actually
curious I will be glad to discuss it with you.

> I suppose someone who's
> > beliefs were carried from childhood could lose them, not having had
> > to dig for the truth.
>
> Or they could be lost after finding the truth.

Most definitly. Now that I think about it, it happened to me.

Og
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

In article <115logkmcv7b8c7 DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og DeleteThis @bashan.org> writes:
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <cary DeleteThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:d3ed5p$24v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > In article <115igcjm6dtbiff DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og DeleteThis @bashan.org>
> writes:
> > >
> > > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > news:3u0i511bgmvlhk1big0vaeupj6or164ql0@4ax.com...
> > > > "Og" <Og DeleteThis @bashan.org> wrote:
> > > > >Those who claim that they were once christians and are not anymore
> > > > >are mostly lying. Most never were christians. Becoming a christian
> > > involves
> > > > >accepting
> > > > >Jesus as your Lord. Once one accepts a Lord, one is under servitude
> to
> > > that
> > > > >lord untill that lord releases him.
> > > >
> > > > Only in medieval European feudalism. And not always then (plenty of
> > > > medieval vassals skipped out on their lords, and some went to war
> > > > against them).
> > >
> > > A good point. A lot did of them did turn on thier lords. But if an
> > > unfortunate turn of events placed them back in that lords jurisdiction
> > > it went very badly for them. I see that you have done some homework.
> > >
> > > > The American Founders accepted King George as their lord, and then
> > > > ceased to accept him without waiting for him to give permission.
> > >
> > > Yes and rightfully so. But George considered them to be criminals
> > > and would have punished them If he had been able to do so.
> > >
> > > The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
> > > christians
> > > is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God. It
> would
> > > stand
> > > to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place where
> > > he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
> against
> > > an
> > > omnipotent Lord.
> > > So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
> conditions.
> > >
> > > A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
> therefore
> > > possible to escape His jurisdiction.
> > >
> > > B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > Or (putting this in terms that may encourage a dispassionate
> > consideration), suppose our apostate was:
> >
> >
> > C. a Hindu who when young believed most fully in Bhrama, Krishna, Lord
> > Ganesh (my personal favorite), Shiva and the rest, but who as he
> > got older, came to realize that there's no there there?
>
> Hi
> A hundu would be no better or worse off having lost a belief in a
> nonexistent
> entity. At least it may trigger a search for a God that does exist, perhaps
> eventually leading to Christ. That was an odd option that you suggested.

But wouldn't our hypothetical Hindu realize that there was no place
where he could go to escape the ravages of Shiva, and that rebellion
is thus futile?


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

"Cary Kittrell" <cary.DeleteThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d3eotu$253$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <115logkmcv7b8c7.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org>
writes:
> >
> > "Cary Kittrell" <cary.DeleteThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> > news:d3ed5p$24v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > > In article <115igcjm6dtbiff.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org>
> > writes:
> > > >
> > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:3u0i511bgmvlhk1big0vaeupj6or164ql0@4ax.com...
> > > > > "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org> wrote:
> > > > > >Those who claim that they were once christians and are not
anymore
> > > > > >are mostly lying. Most never were christians. Becoming a
christian
> > > > involves
> > > > > >accepting
> > > > > >Jesus as your Lord. Once one accepts a Lord, one is under
servitude
> > to
> > > > that
> > > > > >lord untill that lord releases him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only in medieval European feudalism. And not always then (plenty
of
> > > > > medieval vassals skipped out on their lords, and some went to war
> > > > > against them).
> > > >
> > > > A good point. A lot did of them did turn on thier lords. But if an
> > > > unfortunate turn of events placed them back in that lords
jurisdiction
> > > > it went very badly for them. I see that you have done some homework.
> > > >
> > > > > The American Founders accepted King George as their lord, and then
> > > > > ceased to accept him without waiting for him to give permission.
> > > >
> > > > Yes and rightfully so. But George considered them to be criminals
> > > > and would have punished them If he had been able to do so.
> > > >
> > > > The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
> > > > christians
> > > > is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God.
It
> > would
> > > > stand
> > > > to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place
where
> > > > he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
> > against
> > > > an
> > > > omnipotent Lord.
> > > > So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
> > conditions.
> > > >
> > > > A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
> > therefore
> > > > possible to escape His jurisdiction.
> > > >
> > > > B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Or (putting this in terms that may encourage a dispassionate
> > > consideration), suppose our apostate was:
> > >
> > >
> > > C. a Hindu who when young believed most fully in Bhrama, Krishna, Lord
> > > Ganesh (my personal favorite), Shiva and the rest, but who as he
> > > got older, came to realize that there's no there there?
> >
> > Hi
> > A hundu would be no better or worse off having lost a belief in a
> > nonexistent
> > entity. At least it may trigger a search for a God that does exist,
perhaps
> > eventually leading to Christ. That was an odd option that you suggested.
>
> But wouldn't our hypothetical Hindu realize that there was no place
> where he could go to escape the ravages of Shiva, and that rebellion
> is thus futile?

Thats a good point. I suppose the same applies as would for the Christian.
A loss of belief would have to happen as pointed out by Bob.

Og


> -- cary
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

In article <115lgkm9bfm9v02.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com> "Dave Thompson" <abre.RemoveThis@thedoor.com> writes:
>
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <cary.RemoveThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:d3eep4$1pu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > In article <3bvskaF6hsggpU1.RemoveThis@individual.net> "Robibnikoff"
> > <witchypoo.RemoveThis@broomstick.com> writes:
> >>
> >> "Cary Kittrell" <cary.RemoveThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:d3ecvn$1gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> >> > In article <kjke51d928k2fdr4hsrs5sti8kav1a84g3.RemoveThis@4ax.com> Jd
> >> <Jd.fireball.RemoveThis@att.net> writes:
> >> > > [alt.atheism deleted from newsgroups]
> >> > >
> >> > > At the requests of atheists in alt.atheism (a while back), I've
> >> > > decided not to post there. You might want to go get them and bring
> >> > > them here to help defend your ungodly lies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Okay, sure, why not.
> >> >
> >> > Hey Mark, Robyn, Stoney, Vic, Dave, John, and the rest! We got
> >> > yer "JDay" here, and we got yer "ungodly lies" here!! Care to
> >> > join in the fun?
> >>
> >> Alrighty then. What "ungodly" lies have you been telling this time
> >> around,
> >> young man <taps foot with hands on hips>
> >
> > Hard to tell; I keep forgetting which words JDay has put into
> > my mouth this time around...
>
> Did you say Jesus was a monkey again?

No, that would be JDay's Bob-puppet. To the best of my recollection,
JDay's Cary-puppet announced a desire to destory all that is Good
and Decent and Bright and Honest and Hetero and Shining. Something along
those lines.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

"Cary Kittrell" <cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d3eqpf$5mu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <115lgkm9bfm9v02 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com> "Dave Thompson"
> <abre RemoveThis @thedoor.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>> news:d3eep4$1pu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> > In article <3bvskaF6hsggpU1 RemoveThis @individual.net> "Robibnikoff"
>> > <witchypoo RemoveThis @broomstick.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> "Cary Kittrell" <cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:d3ecvn$1gq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> >> > In article <kjke51d928k2fdr4hsrs5sti8kav1a84g3 RemoveThis @4ax.com> Jd
>> >> <Jd.fireball RemoveThis @att.net> writes:
>> >> > > [alt.atheism deleted from newsgroups]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > At the requests of atheists in alt.atheism (a while back), I've
>> >> > > decided not to post there. You might want to go get them and bring
>> >> > > them here to help defend your ungodly lies.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, sure, why not.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey Mark, Robyn, Stoney, Vic, Dave, John, and the rest! We got
>> >> > yer "JDay" here, and we got yer "ungodly lies" here!! Care to
>> >> > join in the fun?
>> >>
>> >> Alrighty then. What "ungodly" lies have you been telling this time
>> >> around,
>> >> young man <taps foot with hands on hips>
>> >
>> > Hard to tell; I keep forgetting which words JDay has put into
>> > my mouth this time around...
>>
>> Did you say Jesus was a monkey again?
>
> No, that would be JDay's Bob-puppet. To the best of my recollection,
> JDay's Cary-puppet announced a desire to destory all that is Good
> and Decent and Bright and Honest and Hetero and Shining. Something along
> those lines.

If you ever find a place like that, let me know and I'll help you destroy
it. It sounds really boring.

Probly should start looking in Utah.
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

"Og" <Og.RemoveThis@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:115m7c4286e0t75@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave Thompson" <abre.RemoveThis@thedoor.com> wrote in message
> news:115lq6v416uhl3c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Og" <Og.RemoveThis@bashan.org> wrote in message
>> news:115jbiqh02m311e@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> > news:3uui519iprsmfftvmll3dm5v6nqf717s62@4ax.com...
>> >> "Og" <Og.RemoveThis@bashan.org> wrote:
>> >> >The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
>> >> >christians
>> >> >is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God. It
>> > would
>> >> >stand
>> >> >to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place
> where
>> >> >he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
>> > against
>> >> >an
>> >> >omnipotent Lord.
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >>
>> >> But if one suddenly loses one's belief in said omnipotence, or even in
>> >> the existence of Jesus Christ, because one has gained some
>> >> contradictory information or insight, then one would have no reason to
>> >> remain Christian.
>> >>
>> >> The belief of the young in Christ is a belief often deriving in part
>> >> from naivete, or parental indoctrination. When people grow up and
>> >> gain independence, they often gain access to new sources of
>> >> information and ideas, and it is these things that can lead to a loss
>> >> of faith.
>> >>
>> >> Or they may simply by growing up lose their childlike faith in lots of
>> >> things, in which case a childlike faith in an invisible God is an easy
>> >> one to lose.
>> >>
>> >> > So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
>> > conditions.
>> >> >
>> >> >A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
>> > therefore
>> >> > possible to escape His jurisdiction.
>> >>
>> >> Backwards. The loss of an already held belief is what usually
>> >> happens. You seem to be assuming that a belief cannot be lost.
>> >>
>> >> >B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
>> >> >
>> >> >Logically, neither of these conditions could be present in a
> christian.
>> >>
>> >> Religious faith isn't logical in the first place,
>> >
>> > Mine is.
>> >
>> >> so that may be part of your mistake.
>> >
>> > Perhaps so. I came to Christ as an adult, throught a long learning
>> > process, involving mostly rational thought.
>>
>> What part of your belief is rational? Rational being based on observable
>> reality.
>
> Rational means "consistent with or based on reason" with that definition,
> all of my belief is rational. This particular discussion we are heading
> toward
> could get long and complicated. There's no point in going any further
> if you are just interested in proving me wrong, but if you are actually
> curious I will be glad to discuss it with you.
>
>> I suppose someone who's
>> > beliefs were carried from childhood could lose them, not having had
>> > to dig for the truth.
>>
>> Or they could be lost after finding the truth.
>
> Most definitly. Now that I think about it, it happened to me.
>
> Og
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:15:05 -0500, Dave Thompson wrote

>
> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org> wrote in message
> news:115jbiqh02m311e@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
>> news:3uui519iprsmfftvmll3dm5v6nqf717s62@4ax.com...
>>> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org> wrote:
>>>> The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
>>>> christians
>>>> is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God. It
>> would
>>>> stand
>>>> to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place where
>>>> he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
>> against
>>>> an
>>>> omnipotent Lord.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> But if one suddenly loses one's belief in said omnipotence, or even in
>>> the existence of Jesus Christ, because one has gained some
>>> contradictory information or insight, then one would have no reason to
>>> remain Christian.
>>>
>>> The belief of the young in Christ is a belief often deriving in part
>>> from naivete, or parental indoctrination. When people grow up and
>>> gain independence, they often gain access to new sources of
>>> information and ideas, and it is these things that can lead to a loss
>>> of faith.
>>>
>>> Or they may simply by growing up lose their childlike faith in lots of
>>> things, in which case a childlike faith in an invisible God is an easy
>>> one to lose.
>>>
>>>> So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
>> conditions.
>>>>
>>>> A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
>> therefore
>>>> possible to escape His jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> Backwards. The loss of an already held belief is what usually
>>> happens. You seem to be assuming that a belief cannot be lost.
>>>
>>>> B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Logically, neither of these conditions could be present in a christian.
>>>
>>> Religious faith isn't logical in the first place,
>>
>> Mine is.
>>
>>> so that may be part of your mistake.
>>
>> Perhaps so. I came to Christ as an adult, throught a long learning
>> process, involving mostly rational thought.
>
> What part of your belief is rational? Rational being based on observable
> reality.
>
>
> I suppose someone who's
>> beliefs were carried from childhood could lose them, not having had
>> to dig for the truth.
>
> Or they could be lost after finding the truth.
>
>

Or, perhaps, one simply gets depressed at trying to find a
Christ-like person when there are - supposedly - about
250,000,000 Christ-like religionists running around loose.

I took a look at the highest-ranking Christ-like person
around - President George W C Bush - and ran him up the
flagpole as "Mister Prince of Peace of 2005".



Gray Shockley
---------------------------
But no one saluted.
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

In article <115m5mopucko323.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org> writes:
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <cary.DeleteThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:d3eotu$253$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > In article <115logkmcv7b8c7.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org>
> writes:
> > >
> > > "Cary Kittrell" <cary.DeleteThis@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:d3ed5p$24v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > > > In article <115igcjm6dtbiff.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org>
> > > writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3u0i511bgmvlhk1big0vaeupj6or164ql0@4ax.com...
> > > > > > "Og" <Og.DeleteThis@bashan.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >Those who claim that they were once christians and are not
> anymore
> > > > > > >are mostly lying. Most never were christians. Becoming a
> christian
> > > > > involves
> > > > > > >accepting
> > > > > > >Jesus as your Lord. Once one accepts a Lord, one is under
> servitude
> > > to
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >lord untill that lord releases him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only in medieval European feudalism. And not always then (plenty
> of
> > > > > > medieval vassals skipped out on their lords, and some went to war
> > > > > > against them).
> > > > >
> > > > > A good point. A lot did of them did turn on thier lords. But if an
> > > > > unfortunate turn of events placed them back in that lords
> jurisdiction
> > > > > it went very badly for them. I see that you have done some homework.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The American Founders accepted King George as their lord, and then
> > > > > > ceased to accept him without waiting for him to give permission.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes and rightfully so. But George considered them to be criminals
> > > > > and would have punished them If he had been able to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
> > > > > christians
> > > > > is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God.
> It
> > > would
> > > > > stand
> > > > > to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place
> where
> > > > > he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
> > > against
> > > > > an
> > > > > omnipotent Lord.
> > > > > So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
> > > conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
> > > therefore
> > > > > possible to escape His jurisdiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or (putting this in terms that may encourage a dispassionate
> > > > consideration), suppose our apostate was:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > C. a Hindu who when young believed most fully in Bhrama, Krishna, Lord
> > > > Ganesh (my personal favorite), Shiva and the rest, but who as he
> > > > got older, came to realize that there's no there there?
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > A hundu would be no better or worse off having lost a belief in a
> > > nonexistent
> > > entity. At least it may trigger a search for a God that does exist,
> perhaps
> > > eventually leading to Christ. That was an odd option that you suggested.
> >
> > But wouldn't our hypothetical Hindu realize that there was no place
> > where he could go to escape the ravages of Shiva, and that rebellion
> > is thus futile?
>
> Thats a good point. I suppose the same applies as would for the Christian.
> A loss of belief would have to happen as pointed out by Bob.
>

Right. Bob said it better than I did; I was being too indirect.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:37:16 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote

> In article <115m5mopucko323 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org> writes:
>>
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>> news:d3eotu$253$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>>> In article <115logkmcv7b8c7 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org>
>> writes:
>>>>
>>>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:d3ed5p$24v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>>>>> In article <115igcjm6dtbiff RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org>
>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3u0i511bgmvlhk1big0vaeupj6or164ql0@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> "Og" <Og RemoveThis @bashan.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Those who claim that they were once christians and are not
>> anymore
>>>>>>>> are mostly lying. Most never were christians. Becoming a
>> christian
>>>>>> involves
>>>>>>>> accepting
>>>>>>>> Jesus as your Lord. Once one accepts a Lord, one is under
>> servitude
>>>> to
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> lord untill that lord releases him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only in medieval European feudalism. And not always then (plenty
>> of
>>>>>>> medieval vassals skipped out on their lords, and some went to war
>>>>>>> against them).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A good point. A lot did of them did turn on thier lords. But if an
>>>>>> unfortunate turn of events placed them back in that lords
>> jurisdiction
>>>>>> it went very badly for them. I see that you have done some homework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The American Founders accepted King George as their lord, and then
>>>>>>> ceased to accept him without waiting for him to give permission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and rightfully so. But George considered them to be criminals
>>>>>> and would have punished them If he had been able to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason that I believe that former christians were never really
>>>>>> christians
>>>>>> is this. If a person really believed that Jesus is the Son of God.
>> It
>>>> would
>>>>>> stand
>>>>>> to reason that that person would be aware that there was no place
>> where
>>>>>> he could go to escape the authority of Christ. Rebellion is futile
>>>> against
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> omnipotent Lord.
>>>>>> So to turn on Christ one would need either one of these two
>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. Belief that Jesus was not really the Son of God and that it is
>>>> therefore
>>>>>> possible to escape His jurisdiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B. Not having accepted this Son of God as Lord in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or (putting this in terms that may encourage a dispassionate
>>>>> consideration), suppose our apostate was:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> C. a Hindu who when young believed most fully in Bhrama, Krishna, Lord
>>>>> Ganesh (my personal favorite), Shiva and the rest, but who as he
>>>>> got older, came to realize that there's no there there?
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>> A hundu would be no better or worse off having lost a belief in a
>>>> nonexistent
>>>> entity. At least it may trigger a search for a God that does exist,
>> perhaps
>>>> eventually leading to Christ. That was an odd option that you suggested.
>>>
>>> But wouldn't our hypothetical Hindu realize that there was no place
>>> where he could go to escape the ravages of Shiva, and that rebellion
>>> is thus futile?
>>
>> Thats a good point. I suppose the same applies as would for the Christian.
>> A loss of belief would have to happen as pointed out by Bob.
>>
>
> Right. Bob said it better than I did; I was being too indirect.
>
>
> -- cary
>
>

Yuh but you guys are still giving both Kali and Mary
Magdalene bad press.

It sounds as if the "Eternal Feminine" isn't.

When next do we hear about "Father Earth" as /he/ gives
birth to {something or nudder}?



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

> >> Your god is no more real than theirs.
> >
> > I suppose it seems that way to you. For myself I have abundant
> > proof of His existence, but I can't provide any for you.
>
> Which means your belief is irrational and not based on reality.
>
> Otherwise, you'd have plenty of evidence.

A disembler, I knew it. Good bye.
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

"Og" <Og.RemoveThis@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:115obpalbprct86@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> >> Your god is no more real than theirs.
>> >
>> > I suppose it seems that way to you. For myself I have abundant
>> > proof of His existence, but I can't provide any for you.
>>
>> Which means your belief is irrational and not based on reality.
>>
>> Otherwise, you'd have plenty of evidence.
>
> A disembler, I knew it. Good bye.

If you make a point to say your belief is rational, you'd better be able to
back it up. It's obvious you cannot, so rather than accept it you end the
discussion here.
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:38:55 +0000 (UTC), cary.TakeThisOut@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell)wrote:

>To the best of my recollection,
>JDay's Cary-puppet announced a desire to destory all that is Good
>and Decent and Bright and Honest and Hetero and Shining.

Whoa, I'm looking for someone who can debug my doomsday machine
software. You seem eminently qualified except for that 'shining'
thing, I like shiny stuff. Interested? It's a non-smoking lab.

FNC, got the t shirt
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us 

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:27:17 -0500, Og wrote

>
>>>> Your god is no more real than theirs.
>>>
>>> I suppose it seems that way to you. For myself I have abundant
>>> proof of His existence, but I can't provide any for you.
>>
>> Which means your belief is irrational and not based on reality.
>>
>> Otherwise, you'd have plenty of evidence.
>
> A disembler, I knew it. Good bye.
>
>

Yo, Porker Og!

If you're going to call someone a name,
learn to spell it first.


Mighten "dissembler" be the spelling for which ye sought
but failed in thou quest for a 'gotcha'?


I fear your "gotcha" turned into an "oopsie".



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
 >> Stay informed about: Poor, poor pitiful us