>
> G-Net wrote:
>>> G-Net wrote:
>>>>> G-Net wrote:
>>>>>> "Al Klein"
wrote in message
>>>>>> news:dufkr291ilr7eiv9m1icqr5h1c6pg1r9is@4ax.com...>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:37:28 GMT, "G-Net"
verizon.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>> G-Net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> G-Net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Al Klein"
wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:g4mfr21k5scrpj39r5c34o26ishnfmnr9v@4ax.com...>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:21:21 GMT, "G-Net"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
verizon.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve O"
nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:51q0ipF1lmtifU1@mid.individual.net...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "G-Net"
verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:YPPth.3013$2n.15@trndny06...>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think you understand me at all. If you did have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any sort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of under- standing you'd know that I haven't tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>convince any of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you of anything. All I have done is quoted some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>scripture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where it's not wanted, so that's in violation of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripture tells you to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a violation of scripture at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Luke 9:5
>>>>>>>>>>> And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that
>>>>>>>>>>> city,
>>>>>>>>>>> shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony
>>>>>>>>>>> against them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you think this passage applies to the internet? That's
>>>>>>>>>> funny.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's supposed to apply everywhere. Unless you can provide
>>>>>>>>> scriptural evidence otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't have to prove anything to you nor provide you with
>>>>>>>>anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep forgetting that you're not in Bible Camp - on Usenet,
>>>>>>> you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your refusal is admission you're lying.
>>>>
>>>> My refusal is an admission of nothing because I am not lying.
>>>
>>> Oops, try again.
>>
>> My refusal is an admission of nothing because I am not lying.
>
> Sorry, no evidence to support your assertions, you lose.
Sorry, no I won many years ago.
>>>>>>>> You don't decide how scripture applies, God does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know that. You seem to have forgotten it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I'm keenly aware of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You demonstrate otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> ...in your opinion.
>>>
>>> Oops, try again.
>>
>> ...in your opinion.
>
> Sorry, the evidence in Google is available for all to see.
Sorry, one does not even need to use Google to see the
evidence.
> The evidence in THIS POST is available for all to see.
That would be another lie, since your post only contains
false accusations and unsubstantiated opinions.
> You lose.
Sorry, no I won many years ago.
>>>>>>> He decided that it applies as long as the Earth exists - his book
>>>>>>> says so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, scripture is applicable within the context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when you think it's okay to ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> ...in your opinion.
>>>
>>> Oops, try again.
>>
>> ...in your opinion.
>
> Nope; you clearly stated you aren't required to observe old testament
> laws,
Most of the Old Testament laws were done away with by Jesus. If you
have a problem with that, take it up with Him, not me.
> In violation of your lord's commandment. That's called "a
> fact."
No, that is called misquoting, mis-reading, misunderstanding and
outright blasphemy.
>>>>>>>>>> It does mean what it says. I just disagree with you on the
>>>>>>>>>> modern day application(s).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course you do, that's how you rationalize your disobedience
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't "justify" disobedience
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just did, liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I did not.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It does mean what it says. I just disagree with you on the modern
>>>>> day
>>>>> application(s)" is your rationalizing your disobedience.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we disagree on how and when to apply scripture.
>>>
>>> Yes. I chastise you for disobeying god.
>>
>> You don't know how to obey God in the first place.
>
> Whether or not I obey any deity isn't relevant;
Of course it is "relevant"! If you have no idea how to obey God's
law, how could you EVER know whether someone else was?
> I don't believe in deities, so why would I "obey" one?
Exactly, you don't understand, you don't obey and you don't know. You
are merely trying to use God's word for your own selfish reasons to force
others to do what you want them to.
> You, however, claim to believe in God, and claim to be xian, and yet
> ignore the commandments you are commanded to follow by your god
> in your book.
You have no idea what the commands are, what they are for nor why they were
given to man in the first place. You have no idea whether I am obeying them
or
ignoring them because you don't know anything about them. You are just
trying
to use them for your own pesonal use not to help yourself be a better person
but
to force someone else to do what you want them to.
Secondly, your claim "you are commanded to follow by your god in your book",
is
a complete lie. I don't have a book. The commandments cannot be followed by
anyone. You don't know that becuase you have never taken the time to learn
anything.
> Don't worry, though; that makes you exactly the same as every other xian.
...in your ignorant opinion.
> I'm sure your deity will take that into consideration.
I'm sure you will not be there to find out.
>>>>>>>>the atheist cannot even understand scripture in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can't "understand" the twisted meaning you give to it, but we
>>>>>>> certainly understand what it actually says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, no way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, is it meaningless?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So your position is that if someone in the town you're
>>>>>>>>> in tells you to shut up about your delusion, you have to walk
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> of town barefoot, but it's okay to annoy people on the internet
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> as long as you want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, you clearly do not understand what this passage applies to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It says - completely non-ambiguously - that you leave where your
>>>>>>> preaching isn't wanted, and you do it quickly (the "shaking the
>>>>>>> dust" part) - regardless of any other meaning you try to read
>>>>>>> into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well when I am "preaching" and there are folks who don't want me to
>>>>>> "preach" I will follow scripture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one? This one?
>>>>> Luke 9:5
>>>>> And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city,
>>>>> shake
>>>>> off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or this one?
>>>>> Matthew 6:6
>>>>> But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
>>>>> hast
>>>>> shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
>>>>> which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
>>>
>>> No answer? Too bad.
>>
>> No answer needed.
>
> Great, then you lose again.
No, I won many years ago.
>>>>>> I haven't done any preaching in Usenet. In fact I've done
>>>>>> virtually
>>>>>> no witnessing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's an easy way to justify what you're doing; lie about it
>>>>> and
>>>>> pray nobody notices.
>>>>
>>>> No, I have not lied about anything.
>>>
>>> Look, the spoiled brat is begging for attention. How cute.
>>
>> I have not begged for attention, how about you?
>
> I deleted alt.atheism because you've become boring.
Good!
> You added back alt.atheism because you're so desperate for my attention.
LOL, whatever you need to believe to make yourself feel good.
> Certainly you aren't interested in debate, because your only response is
> of the
> "I know you are, but what am I?" variety.
You are correct, I am not interested in a debate.
>>>>>>>>> You aren't supposed to pick and chose which parts to read or
>>>>>>>>> follow; you're supposed to read and follow the whole thing.
>>>>>>>>> Stoned any
>>>>>>>>> adulterers lately?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, that would not be scriptural.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's in the Bible isn't scriptural? (The Bible commands that
>>>>>>> adultery is punishable by stoning. It doesn't list any
>>>>>>> modifications
>>>>>>> to that. All people, all places, all times.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the Old law. It's not applicable for modern times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Punkin, punkin, punkin. You REALLY, REALLY need to crack that book
>>>>> open.
>>>>
>>>> I would draw your attention to your own statments: "What's in the
>>>> Bible
>>>> isn't scriptural? (The
>>>> Bible commands that adultery is punishable by stoning. It doesn't
>>>> list any >> >> modifications
>>>> to that. All people, all places, all times.)"
>>>
>>> While I certainly agree with that, it isn't "my own statement;" your
>>> parenthetical wasn't >> > something
>>> I said, although I like parentheticals and that particular one is
>>> perfectly legitimate. So >> > golly, you're
>>> lying again. Have you no shame?
>>
>> I have not lied so, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> Yes, you did; you attributed someone else's statement to me, in an
> attempt to make a point about something I didn't actually say.
...in your opinion.
> That's called "lying."
No, IF it actually happened, it would be called a mistake.
> If you could actually read the attributions, youmight have noticed that
> the evidence of your lie was at the top of the post.
I have not lied.
>>>> My comment was that you were talking about (quoting?) Old Testament
>>>> scripture.
>>>
>>> Yes, and my comments below are your little stickboy specifically
>>> telling you the OT rules
>>> still apply, and will continue to do so "till heaven and earth pass."
>>
>> ... in your opinion.
>
> No, punkin. If you can't come up with anything more substantive,
> don't bother. Unless you now wish to claim Jebus lied.
No, neither I nor the Lord ever lied in any post.
>>>>> Matthew 5:17-18
>>>>> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
>>>>> am
>>>>> not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>>>> 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
>>>>> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
>>>>> fulfilled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us how that isn't scriptural. Tell us how it doesn't really
>>>>> mean what it says.
>>>>
>>>> The passages in Matthew do not talk about stoning people for adultery.
>>>
>>> Not specifically; they just talk about how the Old Testament laws,
>>> which as it happens >> > includes
>>> stoning people for adultery, are still in place; if you'd actually read
>>> the bible, you'd know >> > that.
>>> Unless you think heave and earth have passed, which wouldn't surprise
>>> me.
>>
>> Your warped sense of scripture makes no difference to me.
>
> So now you're saying jesus was LYING?
No, that is just your lying again.
> Wow, bold statement from someone claiming to be xian.
No, just your lies.
> I'm really sorry there are statements in the bible that make you so
> uncomfortable.
That would again be a lie. There are no passages of scripture which
make me uncomfortable at all.
> Maybe you should consider adopting a different holy book.
There is only one Bible.
>> You cannot push me around using misquoted scripture which you carelessly
>> throw around >> out of context.
>
> How am I "pushing you around"?
By misquoting and lying about what scripture says.
> Point out what I've misquoted and why you think it's out of context;
> otherwise,
I have already explained.
> you're just spewing more lies and igorance.
You are lying.
>>> And you failed to answer the question once again. Doesn't all that
>>> dodging make you >> > dizzy?
>>
>> I wouldn't know, I haven't done any dodging.
>
> Not answering a question, or answering a question with a red herring
> or a non sequitur, is dodging.
...in your opinion.
> You have yet to provide ANY substative response to ANYTHING anyone has
> asked you.
No one has asked me any legitimate questions. The only thing there has been
are lies and false accusations.
> Therefore, you're dodging,
...in your opionion.
> and when you claim otherwise, you're lying.
More false accusations and lies.
> Lying and dodging mean you've lost, so either stop lying and dodging,
> or give up.
I won many years ago. I will not "give up" because there is nothing to "give
up" about.
>>>>>>>>> Of course not. You pick and chose what's convenient to
>>>>>>>>> believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes you an apostate. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't make me anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Was it that infamous hacker who added alt.atheism back in?
Which proves nothing.
>>>>>>>>> Whereas you just ignore the parts you don't like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay, whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More evidence of apostasy. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No evidence of anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Who added back alt.atheism?
Which proves nothing.
>>>>>>>>>> He has claimed that I have said things that I have not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he hasn't, liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes he has liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a liar and yes he has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Then I trust you won't dishonestly add back alt.atheism, dearest.
No, I will honestly add it back in.
>>>>>>> I said that you claimed that no one had ever called you a liar.
>>>>>>> You made that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I did not say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> How do you rationalize what you're doing, then?
I don't have to rationalize anything. I am just giving the atheists
a dose of their own medicine. If they don't like it, then stop
posting profanity and lies in Christian newsgroups.
>>>>>>> I claimed that I had called you a liar before you made the claim.
>>>>>>> I had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never said that no one had ever called me a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> You're begging to be spanked some more by readding alt.atheism; it
> isn't my fault you'll accept any kind of attention.
You may be into "spanking" but most adults including me, are not.
>>>>>>> I claimed those two facts, taken together, make you a liar. They
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never said that no one had ever called me a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Explain why I keep deleting alt.atheism, if I'm begging for attention.
I did not say you were or you weren't. Secondly, why are you posting here
at all?
>>>>>>>>>>> As a result of your crossposts into alt.atheism. Better
>>>>>>>>>>> than 95%% of the crossposts between
>>>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism and religious newsgroups originate from the
>>>>>>>>>>> religious newsgroups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can blame me if that soothes your concience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good, since the blame is yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doesn't matter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shrug your shoulders when Verizon closes your account for
>>>>>>> violation
>>>>>>> of their AUP. Your god doesn't run Verizon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF they have grounds and IF they would close my account, I would
>>>>>> get a new ISP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Goody for you, child.
>>>>
>>>> Yep
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Liar.
More false accusations.
>>>>>>>>> Denial doesn't make them go away. Someday, you'll understand
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lying doesn't involve truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it does - it's saying something that's not true. Maybe you
>>>>>>> meant to say something different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never posted a lie
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not a liar.
>>>
>>> Keep begging for attention, childish liar.
>>
>> I haven't begged for attention, how about you?
>
> Revel in your dishonesty, troll.
I cannot "revel" in something which does not exist.
