Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 01-03-2002, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by deank:
Oh dear... now I found out that <a href="http://www.hom.net/~angels/citizens/democracy.html" target="_blank">democracy isn't good for me!</a>

I pity me.

I haven't taken the time to wade through this cesspool, but let me guess. These people think governments derive their powers from God. I'm willing to bet they also claim the USA is "a Christian nation," too, and aren't even intelligent enough to feel any congitive dissonance.

d

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Since the first amendment allows the formation and expression of every form of bizarre belief, the various forms of expressed psychoses tend to be viewed not as mental illnesses, but as beliefs, religions or opinions inhabitants of America have a so-called constitutional right to express or embrace.

He's complaining about this? Ironic isn't it....

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:

But rescue personnel, paramedics, law enforcers and bystanders are against the terribly injured person being taken to an emergency room in order that effort may be made to save his life.

whaaaaa?!!!!!

Quote:

THE HOMOSEXUAL WHO WAS SEVERELY BEATEN
Written by Robert T. Lee on Tue. October 18, 1998

************************************************** **********************
As a minister, I've been asked how I feel about the recent incident in Laramie, Wyomin in which two guys allegedly severely beat the homosexual who later died . This is my response:

Homosexuality is a heinous crime atleast equal to murder. Since it is so, God has made all governments responsible to impose a negative sentiment and a holy indignation within the societies against homosexuality and to sentence all homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20:13). But america rejects the responsiblity God requires of it and foolishly protects the crime of homosexuality as a so-called "right."

However, even though america refuses to impose the death penalty against homosexuality, that does not give private citizens the right to take the law in their own hands unless their lives or welfare are threatened by gays.

Reliable accounts say that the homosexual made a pass towards one of the men, which only rightly inflamed the wrath of the men who beat him. Therefore, although the two men are guilty of taking the law into their own hands by beating the homosexual, yet by so doing, they did far better than the government by helping get rid of one who should have been put to death by the government.

The crime those men committed is not a heinous one - certainly not as heinous as homosexuality. The sentence they will receive should be a very light one since they removed a small piece of the heinous homosexual plague from the society that should have been removed by the government.

It is not that these men severely beat an innocent person. But they beat a high criminal in the sight of God as a result of this homosexual criminal making a pass at one of them. The homosexual really got what he deserved. Gays have rightfully lost their right to life by virtue of their homosexuality.

God, mankind's Creator, who knows what is best for mankind simply because He is their Creator, says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

Now when is the government going to start doing what it is suppose to do?

This guy is scary. Maybe he's right that free speach shouldn't apply to quacks...

diana · 01-03-2002, 08:24 AM

tgamble,

Um...did you mean to say that the nutjob said that and you were transferring it here in response to my comment? I don't think you meant to say I said that....

d

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Robin Banks:
HEATHEN CONSTITUTION SEXUALLY VIOLATING YOUR DAUGHTERS AND WIVES
Written by Robert T. Lee on SUN June 1, 1998

************************************************** **********************
The method physicians must use to check the prostrate glands of males during legitimate medical examinations is quite a repulsive method to sound minds even when it is absolutely necessary.

Because of the nature of the method, it is more appropriate that male doctors perform the tests rather than female physicians. Its not a test female physicians ought to perform.

The same principle holds true for the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. Male physicians have no God-given right to practice obstetrics and gynecology. Those are fields of medical practice which should be reserved strictly for females.

Each time any female visits a male obstetrician or gynecologist, she is sexually violated by that "doctor," whether he copulates with her or not. Married women actually commit adultery whenever they reveal their nakedness and is touched or "examined" by male physicians.

Male physicians practicing obstetrics and gynecology in America is a good example of how the american constitution - the first amendment thereof - actually legitimizes criminality and immorality. It violates the honor of marriage and blurrs or removes moral borders which no citizen should cross.

So females shouldn't work but only females should practice that type of medicine....

Ya know, we don't have these nutcases in Canada.

diana · 01-03-2002, 08:30 AM

When I read such tripe, I can't help but wonder how bent and twisted this man's flock is. What frightens me is that you don't survive as a preacher unless there are enough people to support you and what you stand for.

d

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:39 AM

The guy even attacks specific articles on infidels.org

Quote:

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ATHEISTS SEEK TO DECEIVE
>>>>>GREETINGS CLASS>>>>> Today I would like to to demonstrate a classic example of how the so-called "educated" atheist twist the Holy Scriptures in endeavor to deceive. Please type into your computers the URL: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/nontracts/abortion.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/nontracts/abortion.html</a> found at the web site of the so-called "freedom from religion foundation."

I direct your attention to the subject: "What Does The Bible Say About Abortion? Note carefully that the atheist that wrote that article quoted Exodus 21:22-25 and then gave a deceptive interpretation of the passages in effort to show that the Bible does not teach against abortion. Notice carefully that this person used the word "miscarriage" in the erroneous sense that the baby dies from the struggle and the person who caused the baby's death is not to be put to death, but is only to pay at the husband's discretion.

However, that interpretation is utterly false and insane. To prove that it is false, please note that the word "fruit" in that passage comes from the Hebrew word "yeled" which means "something born or offspring." The word "depart" comes from the Hebrew word "yatsa" which means "to go out." Thus we see that these words have the sense of: "if her fruit departs alive from her." That is : "if she has an untimely live birth." If the struggle causes the baby to be born alive before its time. In such a case, the one who caused the untimely live birth is to be punished as the child's father determines.

But if the baby should be hurt, or if it dies in or out of the womb, or if the mother is hurt or dies before or after its birth as a result of the struggle "...then you shall appoint as a penalty, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Need we say more about how atheists seek to deceive? CLASS DISMISSED

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

NOTE FROM SOME LEADING ATHEISTS WHO ARE IN HELL All atheists are fools (Psalms 10:4;14:1;53:1)------Sign: Karl Marx, Rene Descartes, Nicolo Machiavelli, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Thomas Huxley, John Stuard Mill, A.J. Ayer

Enough said.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

TESTIMONY OF A LITTLE GIRL
Hi everyone. I am 7 years of age. I want to let you knoe what and atheist ears. And atheist iis a person who uses his brain the wrung way.. Atheist don't know trutht. no one can no truth if theu rejek it. atheists are fools. They say it is no GOD. i afraid of atheists. if my parents wood have been atheists, they probably wood have killed me when eye i was in my mama woomb. Atheist kill sic olld people. atheists are nasty. atheist put a lot bad thing on the computer. atheists are dangerous. ppeople

Corrupted so young....

How does a 7 year old girl know about being in "mamma womb" oh the evils of sex education....

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

tgamble · 01-03-2002, 08:47 AM

this is just to funny....

Quote:

COMPUTERS SMARTER THAN ATHEISTS
Even though computers aren't capable of rational thought and know nothing about morals, yet they have more sense than the most learned atheist. Case and point: The other day while working on a PC, I began deleting unwanted files. There was an html file that showed all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Since it was a duplicate file, I decided to delete it also. When I clicked "delete", the usual message came on the screen that said, "Are you sure you want to send the 'TEN COMMANDMETS' to the Recycle bin?" The question struck me very deeply because of how it was worded and for a moment I hesitated to delete the file. After clicking "yes", a message box came up on the screen that said an illegal act had been performed by a program. Now what atheist or heathen has sense enough to think as correctly as that unthinking computer. Atheists do not think it's an illegal act to try to destroy the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Another case and point: Even though computers cannot be made to make rational and moral decisions, yet with certain programs, they can be made to filter out smut that is on the web. This is something atheists cannot do. They think such smut should be allowed. Atheists are incapable of distinquishing good from evil. In fact, they deceptively regard good to be evil and evil to be good. It is atheists who place the smut on the web. So, unthinking and amoral computers can do morally what ignoble atheism is incapable of doing.

Atheists, who made computers have made them capable of being more correctly rational and moral than themselves.

I don't think further comment is needed. This guy needs help.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2002, 08:24 AM	#44
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	tgamble, Um...did you mean to say that the nutjob said that and you were transferring it here in response to my comment? I don't think you meant to say I said that.... d

01-03-2002, 08:30 AM	#46
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	When I read such tripe, I can't help but wonder how bent and twisted this man's flock is. What frightens me is that you don't survive as a preacher unless there are enough people to support you and what you stand for. d

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.