pokerfied.com Promoting poker discussions.

Main Date: 05 Dec 2006 03:37:16 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Eleaticus the Satanist I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my opinion, that's not long enough. Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry like eternal fajitas on a skillet. -Paul Popinjay   Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:31:28 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Mark 3:28-29 >From Jesus Himself: "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 9:08 PM, jocko911 wrote: > > > 2 Timothy 3:1-7 > > > > Godlessness in the Last Days > > > > 2Ti 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. > > 2Ti 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, > > proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, > > 2Ti 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, > > brutal, not lovers of the good, > > 2Ti 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than > > lovers of God- > > 2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Have nothing > > to do with them. > > 2Ti 3:6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain > > control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are > > swayed by all kinds of evil desires, > > 2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > brewmaster wrote: > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > > that. > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 7:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > > > > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > > > > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts > about > > > > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to > post > > > > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > > > > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > > > > opinion, that's not long enough. > > > > > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. > The > > > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz > is a > > > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:42:25 From: ShuffletownKid Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Join me Jocko. I'm a Pagan Scientist. I have learned to turn clay into gold. And, I forgive all but those who can't fold 29 off suit. <jocko911@inbox.com > wrote in message news:1165296688.360167.176660@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Mark 3:28-29 > >>From Jesus Himself: > > "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be > forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will > never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." > > > brewmaster wrote: > > >> On Dec 4 2006 9:08 PM, jocko911 wrote: >> >> > 2 Timothy 3:1-7 >> > >> > Godlessness in the Last Days >> > >> > 2Ti 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. >> > 2Ti 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, >> > proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, >> > 2Ti 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, >> > brutal, not lovers of the good, >> > 2Ti 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than >> > lovers of God- >> > 2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Have nothing >> > to do with them. >> > 2Ti 3:6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain >> > control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are >> > swayed by all kinds of evil desires, >> > 2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. >> > >> >> Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. >> >> > >> > brewmaster wrote: >> > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as >> > > his >> > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too >> > > smart for >> > > that. >> > > >> > > On Dec 4 2006 7:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: >> > > >> > > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. >> > > > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he >> > > > posts >> about >> > > > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right >> > > > to >> post >> > > > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only >> > > > thing he >> > > > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in >> > > > my >> > > > opinion, that's not long enough. >> > > > >> > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this >> > > > newsgroup. >> The >> > > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that >> > > > Igotskillz >> is a >> > > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going >> > > > to fry >> > > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. >> > > > >> > > > -Paul Popinjay >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com >   Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:08:24 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist 2 Timothy 3:1-7 Godlessness in the Last Days 2Ti 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2Ti 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 2Ti 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 2Ti 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God- 2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 2Ti 3:6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. brewmaster wrote: > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > that. > > On Dec 4 2006 7:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > > opinion, that's not long enough. > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > _____________________________________________________________________ > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com     Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:22:21 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 9:08 PM, jocko911 wrote: > 2 Timothy 3:1-7 > > Godlessness in the Last Days > > 2Ti 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. > 2Ti 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, > proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, > 2Ti 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, > brutal, not lovers of the good, > 2Ti 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than > lovers of God- > 2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Have nothing > to do with them. > 2Ti 3:6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain > control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are > swayed by all kinds of evil desires, > 2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > brewmaster wrote: > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > that. > > > > On Dec 4 2006 7:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > > > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > > > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > > > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > > > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > > > opinion, that's not long enough. > > > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > _______________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com       Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:39:23 From: RazzO Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have considered this as what could be Heaven; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe in God? On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > RazzO email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com http://www.razzo.com --------  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com         Date: 05 Dec 2006 00:59:23 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 9:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe > in God? I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks Defending Your Life. > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > RazzO > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > http://www.razzo.com _______________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com           Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:30:05 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > Defending Your Life. > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals.             Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:35:34 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 9:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > > Defending Your Life. > > > > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on > your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you > speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or > something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public > school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy > and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the > hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired > land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read > the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and > doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for > ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent > toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. Fuck Off Paul thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute ____________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:12:16 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com > wrote in message news:67gg44xf8s.ln2@recgroups.com... > > Fuck Off Paul > It's not my fault, and you can't argue with The Bible where it says that the wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush or whatever. You just want to shoot the messenger, because of your closed-mindedness and lack of tolerance. -Paul Popinjay                 Date: 05 Dec 20:25:44 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 1:12 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "pokerchimp" wrote in message > news:67gg44xf8s.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > Fuck Off Paul > > > > > It's not my fault, and you can't argue with The Bible where it says that the > wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush or whatever. You > just want to shoot the messenger, because of your closed-mindedness and lack > of tolerance. > > -Paul Popinjay No you can't argue that the Bible says that. You also can't argue that the bible essentially says.... Earth was created.... A week later Humans are on Earth...... Only missed a few billion years I guess, LOL Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:16:10 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165350344$916748@recpoker.com... > > No you can't argue that the Bible says that. > > You also can't argue that the bible essentially says.... > > Earth was created.... > > A week later Humans are on Earth...... > > Only missed a few billion years I guess, LOL > > Bryan > This is why I consider you one of the biggest morons on this newsgoup, Bryan. You constantly spout off about things which you have no knowledge about, subjects which I have studied in depth. For one, you were completely embarrassed in the thread about lowball. But that wasn't enough for you to be thoroughly bitch-slapped once, you needed to come back for MORE bitch-slapping. I have been studying the Bible since long before you probably stopped crapping in your diapers. I know all about Noah and the Arches and all that stuff. As I said to Pokerchimp, if the Bible said that God thinks the wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush, then why get mad at me when I am simply delivering the message. It just shows your intolerance and general ignorance. And I'm about done with this topic. I just don't have the patience to try to talk to you people who refuse to learn anything. -Paul Popinjay                     Date: 06 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 4:16 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165350344$916748@recpoker.com... > > > > > No you can't argue that the Bible says that. > > > > You also can't argue that the bible essentially says.... > > > > Earth was created.... > > > > A week later Humans are on Earth...... > > > > Only missed a few billion years I guess, LOL > > > > Bryan > > > > > This is why I consider you one of the biggest morons on this newsgoup, > Bryan. You constantly spout off about things which you have no knowledge > about, subjects which I have studied in depth. For one, you were completely > embarrassed in the thread about lowball. But that wasn't enough for you to > be thoroughly bitch-slapped once, you needed to come back for MORE > bitch-slapping. I have been studying the Bible since long before you > probably stopped crapping in your diapers. I know all about Noah and the > Arches and all that stuff. As I said to Pokerchimp, if the Bible said that > God thinks the wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush, then > why get mad at me when I am simply delivering the message. It just shows > your intolerance and general ignorance. And I'm about done with this topic. > I just don't have the patience to try to talk to you people who refuse to > learn anything. > > -Paul Popinjay You have studied the Bible in depth, and started long before I was in diapers. In addition, you believe it to be true. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:41:23 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165397779$917094@recpoker.com... > > On Dec 5 2006 4:16 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > >> "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message >> news:1165350344$916748@recpoker.com... >> >> > >> > No you can't argue that the Bible says that. >> > >> > You also can't argue that the bible essentially says.... >> > >> > Earth was created.... >> > >> > A week later Humans are on Earth...... >> > >> > Only missed a few billion years I guess, LOL >> > >> > Bryan >> > >> >> >> This is why I consider you one of the biggest morons on this newsgoup, >> Bryan. You constantly spout off about things which you have no knowledge >> about, subjects which I have studied in depth. For one, you were >> completely >> embarrassed in the thread about lowball. But that wasn't enough for you >> to >> be thoroughly bitch-slapped once, you needed to come back for MORE >> bitch-slapping. I have been studying the Bible since long before you >> probably stopped crapping in your diapers. I know all about Noah and the >> Arches and all that stuff. As I said to Pokerchimp, if the Bible said >> that >> God thinks the wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush, >> then >> why get mad at me when I am simply delivering the message. It just shows >> your intolerance and general ignorance. And I'm about done with this >> topic. >> I just don't have the patience to try to talk to you people who refuse to >> learn anything. >> >> -Paul Popinjay > > You have studied the Bible in depth, and started long before I was in > diapers. > > In addition, you believe it to be true. > > Bryan > Bryan, you're starting to freak me out. For months I've thought you were just stupid. Now you're starting to remind me of Eleaticus. Please check yourself in.                         Date: 07 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 7:41 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165397779$917094@recpoker.com... > > > > On Dec 5 2006 4:16 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > >> "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > >> news:1165350344$916748@recpoker.com... > >> > >> > > >> > No you can't argue that the Bible says that. > >> > > >> > You also can't argue that the bible essentially says.... > >> > > >> > Earth was created.... > >> > > >> > A week later Humans are on Earth...... > >> > > >> > Only missed a few billion years I guess, LOL > >> > > >> > Bryan > >> > > >> > >> > >> This is why I consider you one of the biggest morons on this newsgoup, > >> Bryan. You constantly spout off about things which you have no knowledge > >> about, subjects which I have studied in depth. For one, you were > >> completely > >> embarrassed in the thread about lowball. But that wasn't enough for you > >> to > >> be thoroughly bitch-slapped once, you needed to come back for MORE > >> bitch-slapping. I have been studying the Bible since long before you > >> probably stopped crapping in your diapers. I know all about Noah and the > >> Arches and all that stuff. As I said to Pokerchimp, if the Bible said > >> that > >> God thinks the wicked homosexuals should be burned in the burning bush, > >> then > >> why get mad at me when I am simply delivering the message. It just shows > >> your intolerance and general ignorance. And I'm about done with this > >> topic. > >> I just don't have the patience to try to talk to you people who refuse to > >> learn anything. > >> > >> -Paul Popinjay > > > > You have studied the Bible in depth, and started long before I was in > > diapers. > > > > In addition, you believe it to be true. > > > > Bryan > > > > Bryan, you're starting to freak me out. For months I've thought you were > just stupid. Now you're starting to remind me of Eleaticus. Please check > yourself in. I appreciate the concern Paul, but I think I will be alright. Everyone is a little nuts, the human mind is very young..... May I start posting as Bryan Popinjay? Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:10:36 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com > wrote in message news:67gg44xf8s.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 5 2006 9:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > > > Defending Your Life. > > > > > > > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you > > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on > > your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you > > speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or > > something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public > > school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy > > and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the > > hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired > > land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read > > the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and > > doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for > > ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent > > toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. > > Fuck Off Paul He can't. His 'antler' was diciduous. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > > thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute > > ____________________________________________________________________ > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com > >             Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:14:34 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 6:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > > Defending Your Life. > > > > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on > your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you > speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or > something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public > school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy > and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the > hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired > land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read > the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and > doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for > ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent > toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. There is almost a 100% certainty that there is life in other parts of the universe. There is also almost a 100% certainty that they are not more advanced than us, if there are sentient beings (I said life). Did god create them too, or is he only in charge of earth? Did god create all the stars in the universe, etc.? Was his plan to have secondary stars and planets formed from debris from supernovas? What's up with dinosaurs? Were they a first attempt that was a mistake? I mean, they lived many many millions of years longer than humans will. The planet will be here long after we cease to exist, and other life will form. Will that be god again? Was he a kid when he made the dinosaurs and just playing? I don't understand any of this. Oh, to WC, I'm not reading Matthew again. I've read it, too many times. It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. It was written by a man who believed that jesus was the son of god and felt that Jesus was the path to salvation, much like you weirdos today still believe it. ________________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:10:48 From: ShuffletownKid Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:qveg44xe6s.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 5 2006 6:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > >> "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message >> news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > >> >> > >> > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. >> > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? >> > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks >> > Defending Your Life. >> > >> >> His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you >> think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on >> your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you >> speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe >> or >> something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public >> school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy >> and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to >> the >> hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired >> land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly >> read >> the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path >> and >> doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith >> for >> ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent >> toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. > > There is almost a 100% certainty that there is life in other parts of the > universe. There is also almost a 100% certainty that they are not more > advanced than us, if there are sentient beings (I said life). Did god > create them too, or is he only in charge of earth? Did god create all the > stars in the universe, etc.? Was his plan to have secondary stars and > planets formed from debris from supernovas? What's up with dinosaurs? > Were they a first attempt that was a mistake? I mean, they lived many > many millions of years longer than humans will. The planet will be here > long after we cease to exist, and other life will form. Will that be god > again? Was he a kid when he made the dinosaurs and just playing? I don't > understand any of this. I think God wasn't raised in a Christian home. > Oh, to WC, I'm not reading Matthew again. I've read it, too many times. > It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. It > was written by a man who believed that jesus was the son of god and felt > that Jesus was the path to salvation, much like you weirdos today still > believe it. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com >               Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:29:44 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:qveg44xe6s.ln2@recgroups.com... : On Dec 5 2006 6:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: : : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message : > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... : > > : > : > > : > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. : > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? : > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks : > > Defending Your Life. : > > : > : > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you : > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on : > your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you : > speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or : > something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public : > school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy : > and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the : > hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired : > land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read : > the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and : > doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for : > ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent : > toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. : : There is almost a 100% certainty that there is life in other parts of the : universe. Show your work. Yes, I am familiar with the Drake Equation, which does not support your statement. : There is also almost a 100% certainty that they are not more : advanced than us, O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. : if there are sentient beings (I said life). Did god : create them too, or is he only in charge of earth? Did god create all the : stars in the universe, etc.? Was his plan to have secondary stars and : planets formed from debris from supernovas? What's up with dinosaurs? : Were they a first attempt that was a mistake? I mean, they lived many : many millions of years longer than humans will. The planet will be here : long after we cease to exist, and other life will form. Will that be god : again? Was he a kid when he made the dinosaurs and just playing? I don't : understand any of this. Actually, I am not aware of anything that you DO understand. : Oh, to WC, I'm not reading Matthew again. I've read it, too many times. And you didn't understand a word, since your interpretation is that Jesus is supposed to forgive everyone. Matthew 25:31-46 directly contradicts that assertion. : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. Please explain how you know this. William Coleman (ramashiva)                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:03:32 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist > > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us. > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. > > Please explain how you know this. Can't prove a negative. Please explain how you know the bible was dictated by god? > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. I liked it better that way. Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ who posts about Brittney Spears pussy and claims to have spent ten years of his life sitting in a strip club... ______________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com                   Date: 05 Dec 20:22:30 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 12:03 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. > > > > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since > the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever > visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more > advanced than us. If there was a species more advanced than us, and they were to come upon planet earth. Do you think they would make contact now, or wait a few 1000 years? Bryan > > > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. > > > > Please explain how you know this. > > Can't prove a negative. Please explain how you know the bible was > dictated by god? > > > > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. I liked > it better that way. Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ > who posts about Brittney Spears pussy and claims to have spent ten years > of his life sitting in a strip club... _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:57:01 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 12:22 PM, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 12:03 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. > > > > > > > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since > > the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > > systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > > advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever > > visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more > > advanced than us. > > > If there was a species more advanced than us, and they were to come upon planet > earth. Do you think they would make contact now, or wait a few 1000 years? > Better not wait too long, or they'll be interacting with cockroaches. > Bryan > > > > > > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. > > > > > > Please explain how you know this. > > > > Can't prove a negative. Please explain how you know the bible was > > dictated by god? > > > > > > > > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > > > Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. I liked > > it better that way. Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ > > who posts about Brittney Spears pussy and claims to have spent ten years > > of his life sitting in a strip club... _______________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com                       Date: 06 Dec 19:34:11 From: CHarrison100 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist > Better not wait too long, or they'll be interacting with cockroaches. Some would say that is a better choice. _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:34:49 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:ksog44xbos.ln2@recgroups.com... : > : > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. : > : : The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists Please list whom you consider eminent physicists. Then list those who advocate this fallacious argument. You are just pulling statements out of your ass, like you always do. : is that, since : the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar : systems, We are??? What bullshit. : any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more : advanced than us already have this ability. Complete non sequitur. Maybe people who are more advanced than us would see no reason to travel to other solar systems. : Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, They haven't? Please explain how you know this. You have the intellectual sophistication of a college sophomore. You constantly state your conjectures and opinions as fact. : there must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us. Since there is no reason to believe your premises are true, the conclusion does not follow. : > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. : > : > Please explain how you know this. : : Can't prove a negative. I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked you how you know this. You need to take some courses in logic and philosophy. You are hopelessly confused about the difference between fact and opinion. : Please explain how you know the bible was dictated by god? Nice strawman. Please point out where I said I know the Bible was dictated by God. : > William Coleman (ramashiva) : : Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. I did. Maybe you didn't notice, but I couldn't get recpoker to post my posts to the newsgroup, so I removed you from my killfile. : I liked it better that way. So did I. : Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ : who posts about Brittney Spears pussy How about someone who thinks it is a big deal that someone else had already posted on the subject? : and claims to have spent ten years of his life sitting in a strip club... Where did I claim that? You sure do like to make stuff up. William Coleman (ramashiva)                     Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:37:08 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 11:34 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:ksog44xbos.ln2@recgroups.com... > :> > : > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. > : > > : > : The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists > > Please list whom you consider eminent physicists. Then list those who > advocate this fallacious argument. You are just pulling statements out of > your ass, like you always do. > > : is that, since > : the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > : systems, > > We are??? What bullshit. Stephen Hawking. Look it up. > > : any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > : advanced than us already have this ability. > > Complete non sequitur. Maybe people who are more advanced than us would see > no reason to travel to other solar systems. > > : Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, > > They haven't? Please explain how you know this. You have the intellectual > sophistication of a college sophomore. You constantly state your > conjectures and opinions as fact. > > : there must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us. > > Since there is no reason to believe your premises are true, the conclusion > does not follow. > > : > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. > : > > : > Please explain how you know this. > : > : Can't prove a negative. > > I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked you how you know this. You need to > take some courses in logic and philosophy. You are hopelessly confused > about the difference between fact and opinion. > > : Please explain how you know the bible was dictated by god? > > Nice strawman. Please point out where I said I know the Bible was dictated > by God. > > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) > : > : Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. > > I did. Maybe you didn't notice, but I couldn't get recpoker to post my > posts to the newsgroup, so I removed you from my killfile. > > : I liked it better that way. > > So did I. > > : Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ > : who posts about Brittney Spears pussy > > How about someone who thinks it is a big deal that someone else had already > posted on the subject? > > : and claims to have spent ten years of his life sitting in a strip club... > > Where did I claim that? You sure do like to make stuff up. > You posted it. Something to the effect of "I spent the better part of ten years at this one particular strip club in Vegas until they threw me out." I don't fell like looking it up. > > William Coleman (ramashiva) ____________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com                       Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:19:57 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:ks1h44x87t.ln2@recgroups.com... : On Dec 5 2006 11:34 AM, William Coleman wrote: : : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message : > news:ksog44xbos.ln2@recgroups.com... : > :> : > : > O I C. Human beings are the most advanced life form in the universe. : > : > : > : : > : The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists : > : > Please list whom you consider eminent physicists. Then list those who : > advocate this fallacious argument. You are just pulling statements out of : > your ass, like you always do. : > : > : is that, since : > : the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar : > : systems, : > : > We are??? What bullshit. : : Stephen Hawking. Look it up. You said a majority of eminent physicists. Apparently you think Stephen Hawking is the only eminent physicist in the world. : > : any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more : > : advanced than us already have this ability. : > : > Complete non sequitur. Maybe people who are more advanced than us would see : > no reason to travel to other solar systems. : > : > : Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, : > : > They haven't? Please explain how you know this. You have the intellectual : > sophistication of a college sophomore. You constantly state your : > conjectures and opinions as fact. : > : > : there must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us. : > : > Since there is no reason to believe your premises are true, the conclusion : > does not follow. : > : > : > : It wasn't written by god, or dictated by god, or anything like that. : > : > : > : > Please explain how you know this. : > : : > : Can't prove a negative. : > : > I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked you how you know this. You need to : > take some courses in logic and philosophy. You are hopelessly confused : > about the difference between fact and opinion. : > : > : Please explain how you know the bible was dictated by god? : > : > Nice strawman. Please point out where I said I know the Bible was dictated : > by God. : > : > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) : > : : > : Why do you keep responding to me, I thought you had me killfiled. : > : > I did. Maybe you didn't notice, but I couldn't get recpoker to post my : > posts to the newsgroup, so I removed you from my killfile. : > : > : I liked it better that way. : > : > So did I. : > : > : Seriously man, a self-purported genius with 200 IQ : > : who posts about Brittney Spears pussy : > : > How about someone who thinks it is a big deal that someone else had already : > posted on the subject? : > : > : and claims to have spent ten years of his life sitting in a strip club... : > : > Where did I claim that? You sure do like to make stuff up. : > : : You posted it. Something to the effect of "I spent the better part of ten : years at this one particular strip club in Vegas until they threw me out." I meant I was a customer for the better part of ten years (eight years to be precise). I certainly didn't mean I spent the better part of ten years of my life there. William Coleman (ramashiva)                         Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:15:45 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 2:19 PM, William Coleman wrote: > I meant I was a customer for the better part of ten years (eight years to be > precise). I certainly didn't mean I spent the better part of ten years of > my life there. > Ok, sorry, I guess I misread that. > > William Coleman (ramashiva) ________________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com                     Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:08:58 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:tRjdh.6736$sf5.1104@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:ksog44xbos.ln2@recgroups.com... > : is that, since > : the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > : systems, > > We are??? What bullshit. You really get stupid in a heated argument, don't you? We are short only of the long term life support necessary - and/or the intent - to make interstellar trips. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net                       Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:24:36 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:abldh.461$BL4.147@bignews2.bellsouth.net... : "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message : news:tRjdh.6736$sf5.1104@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... : > : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message : > news:ksog44xbos.ln2@recgroups.com... : > : is that, since : > : the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other : solar : > : systems, : > : > We are??? What bullshit. : : You really get stupid in a heated argument, don't you? Nope. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't make me stupid. : We are short only of the long term life support necessary Oh, is that all? If you want to talk about trips lasting hundreds of years, then, no, we are not far away. If you want to talk about being able to travel to another solar system in less than 20 years, then, yes, we are very far away. And the nearest stars, like Proxima Centauri, are not promising candidates for a solar system with planets hosting intelligent life. Since you are a science fiction buff, I am sure you are more up on this than I am, but it seems to me that we need some revolutionary new technology, like warp drive, to make interstellar travel feasible. William Coleman (ramashiva)               Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:02:05 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:qveg44xe6s.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 5 2006 6:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > There is almost a 100% certainty that there is life in other parts of the > universe. There is also almost a 100% certainty that they are not more > advanced than us, if there are sentient beings (I said life). Did god > create them too, or is he only in charge of earth? Did god create all the > stars in the universe, etc.? You ever hear of Heironomous (sp) Galen? Astounding had a series about his anti-gravity doodad. Once, in Atlanta (almost in Biblical times, 'twas so long ago), I had the chance to attend a presentation by him at Piedmont Plaza. Instead of the doodad, the subject matter included such useful info as "Jesus is the Lord of the Golden Light (in charge of Earth) but would be promoted at the end of the currect galactic year". Not involving any evils like eternal torture for folk (God's children), his overall schema were more reasonable than the Books-of-Mass-Infanticide's (which were written in Temple years apparently). -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net             Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:55:14 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:Nnfdh.47412$Fg.18748@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > > Defending Your Life. > > > > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on > your television? ROFFLMFAO! It is obviously the work of the Devil, what with all the sex and un-fundamentalist stuff on TV. But that does bring up the question: did the Devil arrange for TV before or after he seeded the world with fossil mis-evidence of evolution? -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net             Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:27:38 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had a tough > time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total nonsense. Actually, what you've repeatedly demonstrated here is that you had a tough time reading past the first verse or two in a smattering of chapters, having quit when you found something that you felt vindicated your position. I note you dropped that "144,000 Jews only allowed in heaven" argument.               Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:38:46 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6, 3:43 am, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > Not everything is an argument. When you tell someone that they're wrong and then proceed to make erroneous counter-claims that is, by definition, an argument. > That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. So your interpretation is dependant on reading the first portion of the chapter and completely ignoring the rest. How intellectually honest of you.                 Date: 07 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 10:38 AM, WuzYoungOnceToo2 wrote: > On Dec 6, 3:43 am, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > > > > Not everything is an argument. > > When you tell someone that they're wrong and then proceed to make > erroneous counter-claims that is, by definition, an argument. > > > That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. > > So your interpretation is dependant on reading the first portion of the > chapter and completely ignoring the rest. How intellectually honest of > you. So I should have said...... That is still my interpretation of the portion of chapter 7 that speaks of the 144,000. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:53:39 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 7, 3:52 am, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > So I should have said...... > > That is still my interpretation of the portion of chapter 7 that speaks of the > 144,000. Ah, OK. So we'll just arbitrarily select bits of text that we like and ignore the parts that aren't convenient. I thought only fundamentalists did that.               Date: 06 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 2:27 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > > > > Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had a > > tough > > time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total nonsense. > > Actually, what you've repeatedly demonstrated here is that you had a > tough time reading past the first verse or two in a smattering of > chapters, having quit when you found something that you felt vindicated > your position. I note you dropped that "144,000 Jews only allowed in > heaven" argument. Not everything is an argument. That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. Bryan   _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:46:16 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165398210$917099@recpoker.com... : : : On Dec 5 2006 2:27 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: : : > On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: : > > : > > Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had a : > > tough : > > time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total nonsense. : > : > Actually, what you've repeatedly demonstrated here is that you had a : > tough time reading past the first verse or two in a smattering of : > chapters, having quit when you found something that you felt vindicated : > your position. I note you dropped that "144,000 Jews only allowed in : > heaven" argument. : : Not everything is an argument. : : That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. What in Chapter 7 or anywhere else makes you think the 144,000 are the only ones who make it to heaven? William Coleman (ramashiva)                   Date: 07 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 7:46 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165398210$917099@recpoker.com... > : > : > : On Dec 5 2006 2:27 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > : > : > On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > : > > > : > > Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had > a > : > > tough > : > > time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total > nonsense. > : > > : > Actually, what you've repeatedly demonstrated here is that you had a > : > tough time reading past the first verse or two in a smattering of > : > chapters, having quit when you found something that you felt vindicated > : > your position. I note you dropped that "144,000 Jews only allowed in > : > heaven" argument. > : > : Not everything is an argument. > : > : That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. > > What in Chapter 7 or anywhere else makes you think the 144,000 are the only > ones who make it to heaven? > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) It is the end of the world, and they are protected before the earth is destroyed. They are given that mark, and if I remember right they learn a song that nobody else can sing. It reads like they are the chosen ones. Also, when you look at the size of the human race, and the standards to make it to 'heaven', 144,000 seems like a reasonable number to me. Chapter 7 is a good example of what the bible does over and over again. Contradicts itself, almost like someone was trying to 'cover all the bases'. Early in the chapter they put a set number on a group of people, 144,000. They even list the 12 different tribes, 12,000 from each. Then seemingly the same group of people is referred to as 'a great amount of people who nobody could count'. Aside from all this, I have countless issues with the bible, here are the main one. God gives humans the ability to reason, to solve problems, to assimilate information and come to logical conclusions. Then he leaves the bible as the only evidence of his existence, and demands faith. It's not a fair deal, you can't just force yourself to believe something. Doesn't there have to be some sort of evidence behind a belief? Bryan   _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:51:36 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165485036$917727@recpoker.com... : : On Dec 6 2006 7:46 AM, William Coleman wrote: : : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message : > news:1165398210$917099@recpoker.com... : > : : > : : > : On Dec 5 2006 2:27 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: : > : : > : > On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: : > : > > : > : > > Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had : > a : > : > > tough : > : > > time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total : > nonsense. : > : > : > : > Actually, what you've repeatedly demonstrated here is that you had a : > : > tough time reading past the first verse or two in a smattering of : > : > chapters, having quit when you found something that you felt vindicated : > : > your position. I note you dropped that "144,000 Jews only allowed in : > : > heaven" argument. : > : : > : Not everything is an argument. : > : : > : That is still my interpretation of Rev. chapter 7. : > : > What in Chapter 7 or anywhere else makes you think the 144,000 are the only : > ones who make it to heaven? : > : > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) : : It is the end of the world, and they are protected before the earth is : destroyed. LOL. I suggest you go back and reread Chapter 7, verse 3 -- "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." "harm" does not equate to destroy. : They are given that mark, and if I remember right they learn a song : that nobody else can sing. It reads like they are the chosen ones. : : Also, when you look at the size of the human race, and the standards to make it : to 'heaven', 144,000 seems like a reasonable number to me. : : Chapter 7 is a good example of what the bible does over and over again. : Contradicts itself, almost like someone was trying to 'cover all the bases'. There is no contradiction. : Early in the chapter they put a set number on a group of people, 144,000. They : even list the 12 different tribes, 12,000 from each. : : Then seemingly the same group of people Why is it seemingly the same group of people? Read verse 9. : is referred to as 'a great amount of people who nobody could count'. So where is the contradiction? There is absolutely nothing in the chapter or anywhere else which says only the 144,000 go to Heaven. Again, you probably got this interpretation from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his physical resurrection. Under any reasonable definition of "Christian", the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. : Aside from all this, I have countless issues with the bible, The main issue being that you don't understand a single word. The Bible is a closed book to atheists. : here are the main one. : : God gives humans the ability to reason, to solve problems, to assimilate : information and come to logical conclusions. : : Then he leaves the bible as the only evidence of his existence, The Bible is not evidence of God's existence. : and demands faith. Show me where in the Bible God demands faith. : It's not a fair deal, you can't just force yourself to believe something. : Doesn't there have to be some sort of evidence behind a belief? There is no evidence for God's existence, beyond subjective personal religious experience. William Coleman (ramashiva)                       Date: 08 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist > There is no evidence for God's existence, beyond subjective personal > religious experience. Assuming every word of the bible is truth. People got to see solid evidence of his existence all the time. The Israelites got to see a bunch of plaques, then the parting of the Red Sea. Yet they were still not on board, that is hard to believe. I would have a hard time turning my back after being rescued from slavery and seeing those events. Yet, I am not worthy of seeing such an event? Bryan > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 05 Dec 20:18:11 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 8:30 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "brewmaster" wrote in message > news:b0pf44xulq.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > > I believe other dimensions are certainly possible, and indeed probable. > > That is physics, not religion. What does that have to do with heaven? > > The best description of "heaven" I've ever seen was Albert Brooks > > Defending Your Life. > > > > His 'Blazing Saddles' was good too but if there is no God then how do you > think the movie picture can be transmitted through the air and end up on > your television? Huh? Answer THAT smart guy. Did this physics that you > speak of just jump off a page and go into force around the whole universe or > something? That's why the athiests don't require physics ed in public > school a lot anymore as you can see they want our children to become lazy > and fat, drinking a lot of soda with sugar in it so that when we fall to the > hordes there will be no able bodied men to defend God's devinely inspired > land here. Obviously you did not understand squat when you supposedly read > the Bible, you and that fool Bryan Kimmes who is surely on the same path and > doth earn a place to burn forever and longer. Behold ye of little faith for > ye should doth prepare for judgement day when your souls should be sent > toward perogatory. You and the masses of wicked homosexuals. Have you read the bible? Front cover to back cover? I'll admitt I had a tough time interpreting parts of it, so much double-speak and total nonsense. If tommorow it was proven that homosexuality is genetic would that finnaly be the end of the bible? Of course not, the new story be "Satan manipulates human DNA!" Bryan   _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 05 Dec From: jd00123 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe > in God? > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > RazzO > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > http://www.razzo.com/ Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said something to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the launch of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity will reach heaven. _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:01:47 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe > > in God? > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said something > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the launch > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity will > reach heaven. I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of humanity reach heaven? WTF? ________________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com             Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:28:04 From: xyious Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 10:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > humanity reach heaven? WTF? as someone else points out, jesus forgives all but denying the holy spirit. so like you can rape, murder, steal ..... do everything you want.... and you'll go to heaven. but god forbid you deny the holy spirit, then no matter how good of a person you are you'll burn in hell. now if that makes sense to anyone, please explain to me. -Alexander Knopf http://www.xyious.com/?links ---  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com             Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:05:26 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:r4pf44xjmq.ln2@recgroups.com... : On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: : : > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: : > : > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached : > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have : > > considered this as what could be Heaven; : > > : > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f : > > : > > : > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe : > > in God? : > > : > > : > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: : > > : > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. : > > > : > > > : > > : > > RazzO : > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com : > > http://www.razzo.com/ : > : > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said : something : > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the : launch : > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the : > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity : will : > reach heaven. : : I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. I thought you said you had read the Bible. You obviously didn't understand a single word. Please read Matthew 25:31-46 and get back to me. William Coleman (ramashiva)             Date: 05 Dec From: jd00123 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe > > > in God? > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said > something > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the > launch > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity > will > > reach heaven. > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > humanity reach heaven? WTF? Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 12:51:50 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:19 AM, jd00123 wrote: > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to > > > > believe > > > > in God? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > > > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said > > something > > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the > > launch > > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of > > > humanity > > will > > > reach heaven. > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. Put me down on the DO NOT WANT list. Let's see, "Eternal Paradise", what things CAN NOT be there. 1. Competition of any kind. Forget the list, without 1, I'M OUT. An eternity is a long time. Most people can't make a 1 or 2 month commitment, yet so many are willing to sign up for an 'Eternity' with very little information. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 03:42:39 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165310393$916494@recpoker.com... > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity > > will > > > reach heaven. > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. You would refuse a baby sustenance or shelter because it doesn't ask for it? -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > _______________________________________________________________ > The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 05 Dec 10:10:53 From: jd00123 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:39 AM, eleaticus wrote: > "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com> wrote in message > news:1165310393$916494@recpoker.com... > > > > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of > humanity > > > will > > > > reach heaven. > > > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. > > You would refuse a baby sustenance or shelter because it doesn't ask for it? > > Im no theologian but your OP asked why so few in heaven and I answered. If God had wanted automatons he could have stopped short of intelligent life. _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:52:16 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165313453$916507@recpoker.com... > > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:39 AM, eleaticus wrote: > > > "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com> wrote in message > > news:1165310393$916494@recpoker.com... > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of > > humanity > > > > will > > > > > reach heaven. > > > > > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > > > > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. > > > > You would refuse a baby sustenance or shelter because it doesn't ask for it? > > > > > Im no theologian but your OP asked why so few in heaven and I answered. If God > had wanted automatons he could have stopped short of intelligent life. ok. But it wasn't my post or question. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > _______________________________________________________________ > * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:38:04 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 1:19 AM, jd00123 wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to believe > > > > in God? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > > > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said > > something > > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the > > launch > > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of humanity > > will > > > reach heaven. > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. BS. The vast majority of people are good and honest. Only a very few are evil. Unfortunately the evil ones get all the attention and cause lots and lots of damage. Jesus is supposed to forgive EVERYBODY, not just the ones who ask for forgiveness. ______________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:05:27 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:s8rf44xjpq.ln2@recgroups.com... : On Dec 5 2006 1:19 AM, jd00123 wrote: : : > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: : > : > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: : > > : > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: : > > > : > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached : > > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have : > > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; : > > > > : > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f : > > > > : > > > > : > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to : believe : > > > > in God? : > > > > : > > > > : > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: : > > > > : > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. : > > > > > : > > > > > : > > > > : > > > > RazzO : > > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com : > > > > http://www.razzo.com/ : > > > : > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said : > > something : > > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after the : > > launch : > > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the : > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of : humanity : > > will : > > > reach heaven. : > > : > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of : > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? : > : > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. : : BS. The vast majority of people are good and honest. Wow! And you think people who believe in God are clueless. : Only a very few are : evil. Unfortunately the evil ones get all the attention and cause lots : and lots of damage. Jesus is supposed to forgive EVERYBODY, He is, huh? I thought you said you had read the Bible. You obviously didn't understand a single word. Please read Matthew 25:31-46 and get back to me. William Coleman (ramashiva)                 Date: 05 Dec 10:06:33 From: jd00123 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:38 AM, brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 1:19 AM, jd00123 wrote: > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to > believe > > > > > in God? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > > > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > > > > > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said > > > something > > > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after > > > > the > > > launch > > > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of > humanity > > > will > > > > reach heaven. > > > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. > > BS. The vast majority of people are good and honest. Only a very few are > evil. Unfortunately the evil ones get all the attention and cause lots > and lots of damage. Jesus is supposed to forgive EVERYBODY, not just the > ones who ask for forgiveness. Really? So you are covered eh? Where did you hear this? _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:51:31 From: eleaticus Subject: OT: is God as evil as some of you claim? "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165313193$916504@recpoker.com... > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:38 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > BS. The vast majority of people are good and honest. Only a very few are > > evil. Unfortunately the evil ones get all the attention and cause lots > > and lots of damage. Jesus is supposed to forgive EVERYBODY, not just the > > ones who ask for forgiveness. > > Really? So you are covered eh? Where did you hear this? Belief in a God is one thing. Reliance on a double volume written by mass murdering, baby-killing barbarians and then people who were writing advertising brochures is something else indeed. So, let's discuss the basics. Is God evil? If not, then why would He have requested or condoned the multilpe acts of genocide outlined (thousands of?) years later in the Books of Moses? And why would he condemn His children to even brief spells of torture, let alone an eternity? How long did you hold your child's hand in a pot of boiling water because she did something 'bad'? And did you put the forbidden candy where you knew she would be sure to find and eat it, and then punish her for it? If God exists and is as obviously evil as so many of you claim (mindlessly) then logically it is evil you must do to qualify for 'Heaven', not good. This view is supported by the Books of Moses, if you can believe in that post-facto confession of evil. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net "jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165313193$916504@recpoker.com... > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:38 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > On Dec 5 2006 1:19 AM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 5 2006 3:01 AM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:51 PM, jd00123 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 11:39 PM, RazzO wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Brew, as a lifelong Christian I always wondered why we never reached > > > > > > Heaven (space exploration and space theory). The past few years I have > > > > > > considered this as what could be Heaven; > > > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/f393328e2c28a06f > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you read it, and do you believe it is possible if you WERE to > > believe > > > > > > in God? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4 2006 9:22 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, it was written in the bible. It MUST be true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RazzO > > > > > > email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com > > > > > > http://www.razzo.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Now you sound like Stalin (you know, that russian leader guy) who said > > > > something > > > > > to the effect "we have been to the heavens, and there are none" after > > > > > the > > > > launch > > > > > of Sputnik. Dont be so limited in your scope, a God who could create the > > > > > Universe can surely find a place or "dimension" for what little of > > humanity > > > > will > > > > > reach heaven. > > > > > > > > I thought god was merciful and Jesus forgives all. Why will so little of > > > > humanity reach heaven? WTF? > > > > > > Look around you, so very few want or ask for it. > > > > BS. The vast majority of people are good and honest. Only a very few are > > evil. Unfortunately the evil ones get all the attention and cause lots > > and lots of damage. Jesus is supposed to forgive EVERYBODY, not just the > > ones who ask for forgiveness. > > Really? So you are covered eh? Where did you hear this? > > _______________________________________________________________ > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 06 Dec 19:08:49 From: CHarrison100 Subject: Re: OT: is God as evil as some of you claim? I like the theroy Anne Rice wrote about in Memnoch the Devil and that is that god started it all Space, Time, all of it but did so with out the knowledge of the result. He answer to the questions posed by his angels was always "Watch and see, I know what I am doing." Good work of fiction. _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:50:34 From: eleaticus Subject: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time Horses, Souls, and Time ------------------------------------ I was eight and at my first parade. I had never seen a horse before. But there they were, six magnificent and unbelievably huge animals pulling a wagon of beer, or so said my father. "Those are horses," said my father. "Do you like them?" he asked. I couldn't answer, overwhelmed by their very _presence_, even more than by their size. Two months later a camp counselor showed me around the farm that would be my home for a month. "And these are our horses," he said, pointing to three puny-looking animals in a pasture. "Those aren't horses!" I exclaimed, "I saw some at the parade." A Clydesdale is a lot more horse than an Arabian, which is a lot more horse than a Shetland. The great differences in degree do not belie their common nature. Just so, the waking state, eidetic (intense, waking-like) dreams and hallucinations, and ordinary dreams evince great differences in degree, but all share a commonality. All these varieties of consciousness contain feeling and sensation in varying degrees of intensity. I can tell I'm riding a Clydesdale, rather that an Arabian or Shetland. The differences in the experiences are great, but those differences in degree cannot logically be taken as a difference in kind. They are all horses. We can tell we are 'awake' and experiencing 'reality' rather than dreaming, usually, but the difference in content is one of degree. We recognize 'red', 'loud', 'pain', 'fear', 'nausea', 'hard', and a myriad of other sensations and feelings in all the varieties of experience. It is only differences in intensity that suggest a difference in kind from one variety to another, and that makes no more sense as a reason to think there is a qualitative difference than the difference between 'loud' and 'soft', which are a particular kind of difference in intensity, not kind. Yes, the sensations of the 'awake' state are overwhelmingly intense compared to those of common dreams. Usually. But rub your eyes and you will experience visual sensation that obviously has no correlate external to your apparent body. Eidetic dreams and hallucinations are overwhelmingly intense and can be distinguished from waking experience only by the rarity of their content, not by a difference in kind of sensation content. Hence, no variety of 'physical' sensation can be taken as evidence of the existence of a physical 'reality'. Hallucination and waking awareness are equally convincing in their intensity. All sensation, therefore, can be taken only as the evidence that something exists that experiences sensation, and the passage of time. The Relativity confusion has made it common in some circles to imagine that time does not exist except as a figment of our 'minds', but the illogic is enough to create reasonable doubt that there is an objective reality. How could real people imagine that something taking time to experience does not require the existence of time? How long does it take you to believe that time does not exist? Most of us have too little time available to waste it on imagining that time doesn't exist. Yes, we have only two givens in existence: time and something that experiences the passage of time complete with those other sensations and feelings that sometimes suggest a 'reality' that may be illusional. Time has a name that causes no one any emotional, logical, or philosophical problems. But what to call the stuff that experiences? "Soul" and 'spirit' have been around a long time but bring with them baggage stolen from the slums of delusion and illogic. Perhaps a new fabrication, a new coinage. How about 'edz', a simple fabrication that has no baggage? You may find some assumptions necessary. Number one may be the obvious: not just logic, but scientific method, works even if there is no objective reality. It is only consistency that is required in a given state of consciousness. My own other assumption is that 'I' am not the only soul or that I am just a part of a greater soul, much as a whirlpool is only a distinguishable part of a river. The physical assumption, that there is a physical reality behind the semblance, leads to an interesting possibility. Perhaps there is a More, and an Only. A More would be a person or other physical being 'inhabited' or otherwise associated with a soul. An Only would be a physical entity with no soul, which would possibly explain sociopaths and other 'unfeeling' persons. The sensory apparatus might report an injury or a pleasurable stimulus to the brain, but no resident soul would be present to experience the pain or pleasure. Are you a More, or an Only?     Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:13:07 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Dec 4 2006 8:50 PM, eleaticus wrote: > Horses, Souls, and Time > ------------------------------------ > > I was eight and at my first parade. I had never seen a horse before. But > there they were, six magnificent and unbelievably huge animals pulling a > wagon of beer, or so said my father. > > "Those are horses," said my father. "Do you like them?" he asked. > > I couldn't answer, overwhelmed by their very _presence_, even more than by > their size. > > Two months later a camp counselor showed me around the farm that would be my > home for a month. > > "And these are our horses," he said, pointing to three puny-looking animals > in a pasture. > > "Those aren't horses!" I exclaimed, "I saw some at the parade." > > A Clydesdale is a lot more horse than an Arabian, which is a lot more horse > than a Shetland. The great differences in degree do not belie their common > nature. > > Just so, the waking state, eidetic (intense, waking-like) dreams and > hallucinations, and ordinary dreams evince great differences in degree, but > all share a commonality. All these varieties of consciousness contain > feeling and sensation in varying degrees of intensity. > > I can tell I'm riding a Clydesdale, rather that an Arabian or Shetland. The > differences in the experiences are great, but those differences in degree > cannot logically be taken as a difference in kind. They are all horses. > > We can tell we are 'awake' and experiencing 'reality' rather than dreaming, > usually, but the difference in content is one of degree. > > We recognize 'red', 'loud', 'pain', 'fear', 'nausea', 'hard', and a myriad > of other sensations and feelings in all the varieties of experience. It is > only differences in intensity that suggest a difference in kind from one > variety to another, and that makes no more sense as a reason to think there > is a qualitative difference than the difference between 'loud' and 'soft', > which are a particular kind of difference in intensity, not kind. > > Yes, the sensations of the 'awake' state are overwhelmingly intense compared > to those of common dreams. Usually. But rub your eyes and you will > experience visual sensation that obviously has no correlate external to your > apparent body. > > Eidetic dreams and hallucinations are overwhelmingly intense and can be > distinguished from waking experience only by the rarity of their content, > not by a difference in kind of sensation content. Hence, no variety of > 'physical' sensation can be taken as evidence of the existence of a physical > 'reality'. Hallucination and waking awareness are equally convincing in > their intensity. > > All sensation, therefore, can be taken only as the evidence that something > exists that experiences sensation, and the passage of time. > > The Relativity confusion has made it common in some circles to imagine that > time does not exist except as a figment of our 'minds', but the illogic is > enough to create reasonable doubt that there is an objective reality. How > could real people imagine that something taking time to experience does not > require the existence of time? > > How long does it take you to believe that time does not exist? > > Most of us have too little time available to waste it on imagining that time > doesn't exist. > > Yes, we have only two givens in existence: time and something that > experiences the passage of time complete with those other sensations and > feelings that sometimes suggest a 'reality' that may be illusional. > > Time has a name that causes no one any emotional, logical, or philosophical > problems. > > But what to call the stuff that experiences? "Soul" and 'spirit' have been > around a long time but bring with them baggage stolen from the slums of > delusion and illogic. Perhaps a new fabrication, a new coinage. How about > 'edz', a simple fabrication that has no baggage? > > You may find some assumptions necessary. > > Number one may be the obvious: not just logic, but scientific method, works > even if there is no objective reality. It is only consistency that is > required in a given state of consciousness. > > My own other assumption is that 'I' am not the only soul or that I am just a > part of a greater soul, much as a whirlpool is only a distinguishable part > of a river. > > The physical assumption, that there is a physical reality behind the > semblance, leads to an interesting possibility. Perhaps there is a More, and > an Only. > > A More would be a person or other physical being 'inhabited' or otherwise > associated with a soul. > > An Only would be a physical entity with no soul, which would possibly > explain sociopaths and other 'unfeeling' persons. The sensory apparatus > might report an injury or a pleasurable stimulus to the brain, but no > resident soul would be present to experience the pain or pleasure. > > Are you a More, or an Only? I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. ---  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com       Date: 04 Dec 2006 23:19:43 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:3obf44xa2q.ln2@recgroups.com... > I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, > so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more > of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. Nor one that is salved by Books of Moses-like belief that the evil you do is ordained by God. Innyhoo, congrats on actually acting rationally toward the piece. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > --- > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com >       Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:10:00 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:13:07 -0800, "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote: > >I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, >so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more >of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. > Did you ever stop and wonder how you developed your "conscience" in the first place? My SWAG is that you were raised in some mainstream religion or the other, that implanted those ideas of right and wrong at an early age. It is tempting for people to think that they would have come up with those same rules of conduct all on their own, but I doubt it. The human mind is wonderfully inventive when it comes to supplying rationalizations for anything we want to do.         Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:17:26 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Dec 5 2006 5:10 AM, FL Turbo wrote: > On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:13:07 -0800, "brewmaster" > <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote: > > > > > >I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, > >so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more > >of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. > > > > Did you ever stop and wonder how you developed your "conscience" in > the first place? > > My SWAG is that you were raised in some mainstream religion or the > other, that implanted those ideas of right and wrong at an early age. > No, very much the opposite. My father was british, and protestant. We didn't go to church, but we read the bible as a family. My mother on the other hand was Austrian, barely escaped before the nazis took over Vienna, and her parents (my grandparents) died at Auschwitz. There was religion in my family. > It is tempting for people to think that they would have come up with > those same rules of conduct all on their own, but I doubt it. > I didn't come up with it on my own. I was raised that way. Lots of "religious" people are bad people. All muslim terrorists for one. Abortion clinic bombers for two. > The human mind is wonderfully inventive when it comes to supplying > rationalizations for anything we want to do. Thanks for proving my point. Religious fables are the utmost in rationalization. _____________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com           Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:53:46 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:17:26 -0800, "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote: >On Dec 5 2006 5:10 AM, FL Turbo wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:13:07 -0800, "brewmaster" >> <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, >> >so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more >> >of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. >> > >> >> Did you ever stop and wonder how you developed your "conscience" in >> the first place? >> >> My SWAG is that you were raised in some mainstream religion or the >> other, that implanted those ideas of right and wrong at an early age. >> > >No, very much the opposite. My father was british, and protestant. We >didn't go to church, but we read the bible as a family. My mother on the >other hand was Austrian, barely escaped before the nazis took over Vienna, >and her parents (my grandparents) died at Auschwitz. There was religion >in my family. > So first you say my SWAG was wrong, and then you conclude by saying that there was religion in your family. Huh? >> It is tempting for people to think that they would have come up with >> those same rules of conduct all on their own, but I doubt it. >> > >I didn't come up with it on my own. I was raised that way. Lots of >"religious" people are bad people. All muslim terrorists for one. >Abortion clinic bombers for two. > No argument from me on that one. >> The human mind is wonderfully inventive when it comes to supplying >> rationalizations for anything we want to do. > >Thanks for proving my point. Religious fables are the utmost in >rationalization. > Fables have long been used as a way to make a point through a simple story, rather than just preaching. The Aesop's Fables being the most famous. If you disregard any and all fables, you are in serious danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (If you will pardon that overused cliche.) I will spare you my tiresome rant of how incredibly naive the Rabid Atheists are in thinking that the world would be a wonderful place if only, somehow, someway we could eradicate all religion.             Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:23:09 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message news:84ccn2p3ota8ppm3kn2pjbrlri4ahdk2ff@4ax.com... > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:17:26 -0800, "brewmaster" > <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote: > >> >>I didn't come up with it on my own. I was raised that way. Lots of >>"religious" people are bad people. All muslim terrorists for one. >>Abortion clinic bombers for two. >> > > No argument from me on that one. > ok then, here's some from ME! He talks in one breath of the 'bad' muslim terrorists, then the next breath defends the murdering terrorists who masquerade as 'doctors' while they murder babies. I won't shed ONE tear for some baby-murdering 'doctor' who gets his face blown off. Praise the Lord, -Paul Popinjay             Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:58:04 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message news:84ccn2p3ota8ppm3kn2pjbrlri4ahdk2ff@4ax.com... > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:17:26 -0800, "brewmaster" > <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote: > > >On Dec 5 2006 5:10 AM, FL Turbo wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:13:07 -0800, "brewmaster" > >> <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> >I don't believe in souls, god, life after death, or anything like that, > >> >so I guess I'm an "only", but I'm not a sociopath. I probably have more > >> >of a conscience than most of the religious nuts. > >> > > >> > >> Did you ever stop and wonder how you developed your "conscience" in > >> the first place? > >> > >> My SWAG is that you were raised in some mainstream religion or the > >> other, that implanted those ideas of right and wrong at an early age. > >> > > > >No, very much the opposite. My father was british, and protestant. We > >didn't go to church, but we read the bible as a family. My mother on the > >other hand was Austrian, barely escaped before the nazis took over Vienna, > >and her parents (my grandparents) died at Auschwitz. There was religion > >in my family. > > > > So first you say my SWAG was wrong, and then you conclude by saying > that there was religion in your family. > > Huh? > > >> It is tempting for people to think that they would have come up with > >> those same rules of conduct all on their own, but I doubt it. > >> > > > >I didn't come up with it on my own. I was raised that way. Lots of > >"religious" people are bad people. All muslim terrorists for one. > >Abortion clinic bombers for two. > > > > No argument from me on that one. > > >> The human mind is wonderfully inventive when it comes to supplying > >> rationalizations for anything we want to do. > > > >Thanks for proving my point. Religious fables are the utmost in > >rationalization. > > > > Fables have long been used as a way to make a point through a simple > story, rather than just preaching. > > The Aesop's Fables being the most famous. > > If you disregard any and all fables, you are in serious danger of > throwing the baby out with the bathwater. > (If you will pardon that overused cliche.) > > I will spare you my tiresome rant of how incredibly naive the Rabid > Atheists are in thinking that the world would be a wonderful place if > only, somehow, someway we could eradicate all religion. Taking someone else's method here, but in fully conscious humor, let me say that you shouldn't base your opinion on what you saw on South Park. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > >               Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:05:36 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:58:04 -0600, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote: >> >> I will spare you my tiresome rant of how incredibly naive the Rabid >> Atheists are in thinking that the world would be a wonderful place if >> only, somehow, someway we could eradicate all religion. > >Taking someone else's method here, but in fully conscious humor, let me say >that you shouldn't base your opinion on what you saw on South Park. Maybe if I had ever seen South Park I would understand the humor. No, don't try to explain it to me. Once someone explains a joke, it isn't funny any more.     Date: 05 Dec 14:23:11 From: Nick Wool Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Dec 5 2006 4:47 AM, eleaticus wrote: > Horses, Souls, and Time > ------------------------------------ > > I was eight and at my first parade. I had never seen a horse before. But > there they were, six magnificent and unbelievably huge animals pulling a > wagon of beer, or so said my father. > > "Those are horses," said my father. "Do you like them?" he asked. > > I couldn't answer, overwhelmed by their very _presence_, even more than by > their size. > > Two months later a camp counselor showed me around the farm that would be my > home for a month. > > "And these are our horses," he said, pointing to three puny-looking animals > in a pasture. > > "Those aren't horses!" I exclaimed, "I saw some at the parade." > > A Clydesdale is a lot more horse than an Arabian, which is a lot more horse > than a Shetland. The great differences in degree do not belie their common > nature. > > Just so, the waking state, eidetic (intense, waking-like) dreams and > hallucinations, and ordinary dreams evince great differences in degree, but > all share a commonality. All these varieties of consciousness contain > feeling and sensation in varying degrees of intensity. > > I can tell I'm riding a Clydesdale, rather that an Arabian or Shetland. The > differences in the experiences are great, but those differences in degree > cannot logically be taken as a difference in kind. They are all horses. > > We can tell we are 'awake' and experiencing 'reality' rather than dreaming, > usually, but the difference in content is one of degree. > > We recognize 'red', 'loud', 'pain', 'fear', 'nausea', 'hard', and a myriad > of other sensations and feelings in all the varieties of experience. It is > only differences in intensity that suggest a difference in kind from one > variety to another, and that makes no more sense as a reason to think there > is a qualitative difference than the difference between 'loud' and 'soft', > which are a particular kind of difference in intensity, not kind. > > Yes, the sensations of the 'awake' state are overwhelmingly intense compared > to those of common dreams. Usually. But rub your eyes and you will > experience visual sensation that obviously has no correlate external to your > apparent body. > > Eidetic dreams and hallucinations are overwhelmingly intense and can be > distinguished from waking experience only by the rarity of their content, > not by a difference in kind of sensation content. Hence, no variety of > 'physical' sensation can be taken as evidence of the existence of a physical > 'reality'. Hallucination and waking awareness are equally convincing in > their intensity. > > All sensation, therefore, can be taken only as the evidence that something > exists that experiences sensation, and the passage of time. > > The Relativity confusion has made it common in some circles to imagine that > time does not exist except as a figment of our 'minds', but the illogic is > enough to create reasonable doubt that there is an objective reality. How > could real people imagine that something taking time to experience does not > require the existence of time? I was following the plot until here...whoever said that relativity implies that time doesn't exist?  Relativity replaced the concept of time as an independent entity outside of 3D space, and placed it along with space, using the term 4D space-time.  I think you might be thinking about Quantum, where some people claimed that objective reality doesn't exist, but 'reality' only exists in a state of  potential probabilities, until it is observed and the wave is collapsed.  > How long does it take you to believe that time does not exist? > > Most of us have too little time available to waste it on imagining that time > doesn't exist. > > Yes, we have only two givens in existence: time and something that > experiences the passage of time complete with those other sensations and > feelings that sometimes suggest a 'reality' that may be illusional. > > Time has a name that causes no one any emotional, logical, or philosophical > problems. > > But what to call the stuff that experiences? "Soul" and 'spirit' have been > around a long time but bring with them baggage stolen from the slums of > delusion and illogic. Perhaps a new fabrication, a new coinage. How about > 'edz', a simple fabrication that has no baggage? > > You may find some assumptions necessary. > > Number one may be the obvious: not just logic, but scientific method, works > even if there is no objective reality. It is only consistency that is > required in a given state of consciousness. > > My own other assumption is that 'I' am not the only soul or that I am just a > part of a greater soul, much as a whirlpool is only a distinguishable part > of a river. > > The physical assumption, that there is a physical reality behind the > semblance, leads to an interesting possibility. Perhaps there is a More, and > an Only. > > A More would be a person or other physical being 'inhabited' or otherwise > associated with a soul. > > An Only would be a physical entity with no soul, which would possibly > explain sociopaths and other 'unfeeling' persons. The sensory apparatus > might report an injury or a pleasurable stimulus to the brain, but no > resident soul would be present to experience the pain or pleasure. > > Are you a More, or an Only? Now this question doesn't really follow logically from your statement....because it already assumes there is indeed a soul...whereas you've only postulated a soul without any arguments/evidence to back it up. _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:36:53 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165328591$916576@recpoker.com... > > On Dec 5 2006 4:47 AM, eleaticus wrote: > > All sensation, therefore, can be taken only as the evidence that something > > exists that experiences sensation, and the passage of time. > > > > The Relativity confusion has made it common in some circles to imagine that > > time does not exist except as a figment of our 'minds', but the illogic is > > enough to create reasonable doubt that there is an objective reality. How > > could real people imagine that something taking time to experience does not > > require the existence of time? > > I was following the plot until here...whoever said that relativity implies that > time doesn't exist? Well, Einstein certainly didn't start that way, but once Minkowski replaced separate space and time with space-time, it led some to conclude that since space was obviously not like time, time must be space. Part of the problem, I think, lay in the problem with Einstein's demonstration/derivation of time dilation (the same logical/algebraic technique also can be used to show time contraction): the space-time interval concept was required to dummy-up 'real' time as a rescue. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Relativity said there was no such thing as time, just that the 'confusion' contributed. Over 1.5 decades I have been told time doesn't exist quite a number of times. >Relativity replaced the concept of time as an independent > entity outside of 3D space, and placed it along with space, using the term 4D > space-time. There you go, placed it with space. > I think you might be thinking about Quantum, No. I have no doubt that may have supported the viewpoint, however. >where some people claimed > that objective reality doesn't exist, but 'reality' only exists in a state of > potential probabilities, until it is observed and the wave is collapsed. > > Are you a More, or an Only? > Now this question doesn't really follow logically from your statement....because > it already assumes there is indeed a soul...whereas you've only postulated a > soul without any arguments/evidence to back it up. No. Given that you don't KNOW you aren't dreaming, so to speak, it is the 'real' world you don't know exists, and thus (one presumes for most of us, if y'all do exist in any sense): it is that which experiences the appearance (however misleading or accurate) that you do know exists. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > _______________________________________________________________ > Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:43:12 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:kBldh.472$BL4.148@bignews2.bellsouth.net... : "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message : news:1165328591$916576@recpoker.com... : > : > On Dec 5 2006 4:47 AM, eleaticus wrote: : : : > > All sensation, therefore, can be taken only as the evidence that : something : > > exists that experiences sensation, and the passage of time. : > > : > > The Relativity confusion has made it common in some circles to imagine : that : > > time does not exist except as a figment of our 'minds', but the illogic : is : > > enough to create reasonable doubt that there is an objective reality. : How : > > could real people imagine that something taking time to experience does : not : > > require the existence of time? : > : > I was following the plot until here...whoever said that relativity implies : that : > time doesn't exist? : : Well, Einstein certainly didn't start that way, but once Minkowski replaced : separate space and time with space-time, it led some to conclude that since : space was obviously not like time, time must be space. Part of the problem, : I think, lay in the problem with Einstein's demonstration/derivation of : time dilation (the same logical/algebraic technique also can be used to show : time contraction): the space-time interval concept was required to dummy-up : 'real' time as a rescue. : : BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Relativity said there was no such thing as : time, just that the 'confusion' contributed. Over 1.5 decades I have been : told time doesn't exist quite a number of times. : : >Relativity replaced the concept of time as an independent : > entity outside of 3D space, and placed it along with space, using the term : 4D : > space-time. : : There you go, placed it with space. : : > I think you might be thinking about Quantum, : : No. I have no doubt that may have supported the viewpoint, however. : : >where some people claimed : > that objective reality doesn't exist, but 'reality' only exists in a state : of : > potential probabilities, until it is observed and the wave is collapsed. : : > > Are you a More, or an Only? : : > Now this question doesn't really follow logically from your : statement....because : > it already assumes there is indeed a soul...whereas you've only postulated : a : > soul without any arguments/evidence to back it up. : : No. Given that you don't KNOW you aren't dreaming, so to speak, it is the : 'real' world you don't know exists, Thank you Bishop Berkeley. : and thus (one presumes for most of us, : if y'all do exist in any sense): it is that which experiences the : appearance (however misleading or accurate) that you do know exists. Thank you Rene Descartes. William Coleman (ramashiva)     Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:55:52 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time On Dec 5, 3:36 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > Well, Einstein certainly didn't start that way, but once Minkowski replaced > separate space and time with space-time, it led some to conclude that since > space was obviously not like time, time must be space. > > Part of the problem, I think, lay in the problem with Einstein's demonstration/derivation of > time dilation (the same logical/algebraic technique also can be used to show > time contraction): the space-time interval concept was required to dummy-up > 'real' time as a rescue. Your capacity for producing meaningless drivel in an attempt to sound like you know what the fuck you're talking about is nothing short of astounding. > There you go, placed it with space. More accurately, combined it with the dimensions previously referred to as "space" to form a single construct called "spacetime". That in no way implies that "time" ceases to exist and is now "space". That's nothing but a meaningless exercise in semantics.       Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:08:14 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165355752.161754.130890@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 3:36 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Well, Einstein certainly didn't start that way, but once Minkowski replaced > > separate space and time with space-time, it led some to conclude that since > > space was obviously not like time, time must be space. > > > > Part of the problem, I think, lay in the problem with Einstein's demonstration/derivation of > > time dilation (the same logical/algebraic technique also can be used to show > > time contraction): the space-time interval concept was required to dummy-up > > 'real' time as a rescue. > > Your capacity for producing meaningless drivel in an attempt to sound > like you know what the fuck you're talking about is nothing short of > astounding. > > > There you go, placed it with space. > > More accurately, combined it with the dimensions previously referred to > as "space" to form a single construct called "spacetime". That in no > way implies that "time" ceases to exist and is now "space". That's > nothing but a meaningless exercise in semantics. ROFFLMFAO! You accuse me of saying time has ceased to exist ... in a subthread where I gave time as one of the only two 'givens'!! ROFFLMFAO! -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net >       Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:05:06 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: OT: Horses, Souls, and Time "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165355752.161754.130890@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 3:36 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Well, Einstein certainly didn't start that way, but once Minkowski replaced > > separate space and time with space-time, it led some to conclude that since > > space was obviously not like time, time must be space. > > > > Part of the problem, I think, lay in the problem with Einstein's demonstration/derivation of > > time dilation (the same logical/algebraic technique also can be used to show > > time contraction): the space-time interval concept was required to dummy-up > > 'real' time as a rescue. > > Your capacity for producing meaningless drivel in an attempt to sound > like you know what the fuck you're talking about is nothing short of > astounding. > > > There you go, placed it with space. > > More accurately, combined it with the dimensions previously referred to > as "space" to form a single construct called "spacetime". That in no > way implies that "time" ceases to exist and is now "space". That's > nothing but a meaningless exercise in semantics. Your capacity for producing drivel is nothing short of what we expect from you. There was no way at any time that I posted even the ghost of a hint that time 'ceases' to exist. Why not just admit you are functionally a ... Bush? eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus   Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:27:24 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for that. On Dec 4 2006 7:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay _____________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 04:41:47 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > that. > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to know we exist.       Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:04:57 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > that. > > > > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to know > we exist. Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented to keep idiots in line. Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. ______________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com         Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:48:21 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:p8bf44xo1q.ln2@recgroups.com... > > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > to keep idiots in line. > > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. I mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize that fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. So how can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? -Paul Popinay           Date: 05 Dec 2006 00:05:23 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:FK7dh.63842$si3.55756@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:p8bf44xo1q.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > > to keep idiots in line. > > > > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in > > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > > > > > Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You > have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. I > mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in > code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize that > fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. LOL. As for me, I don't think Ramshiva is a whit more intelligent than are you. But a previously posed question remains: Just what test was that on? (I suspect it was on the Biggest Little Moron's test, if any.) >So how > can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? Have you been subject to some potent source of radiation? To the extent that your hair (and/or leaves?) have begun to fall out, and brain damage has resulted in a tendency to project? Just asking. (I don't ask about your 'antler' because I do not suppose it has ever been any use to you.) -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net             Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:09:52 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:7Y7dh.192$BL4.49@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:FK7dh.63842$si3.55756@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> >> "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message >> news:p8bf44xo1q.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > >> > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was > invented >> > to keep idiots in line. >> > >> > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe > in >> > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I >> > think >> > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. >> > >> >> >> Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You >> have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William >> Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. >> I >> mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant >> Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in >> code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most >> intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize >> that >> fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. > > LOL. > > As for me, I don't think Ramshiva is a whit more intelligent than are you. > > But a previously posed question remains: > > Just what test was that on? (I suspect it was on the Biggest Little > Moron's > test, if any.) > >>So how >> can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the >> decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? > > Have you been subject to some potent source of radiation? > > To the extent that your hair (and/or leaves?) have begun to fall out, and > brain damage has resulted in a tendency to project? > > Just asking. > > (I don't ask about your 'antler' because I do not suppose it has ever been > any use to you.) > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > What happened to you in that lowball thread a couple weeks ago, einsteinium? Looked like you did a lot of work on that. Not ONE fucking response to your idiocy, huh, except me to say "wtf?" Meanwhile, Ramashiva, your intellectual superior by at least 3.14159265 lightyears, can discuss ANY topic and generate huge threads of interest. I have a feeling a lot of people appreciate what a total Satanist freak you are, and the smart ones appreciate the BRILLIANCE of Ramashiva. Give your wool sweaters to charity, Eleacticus, you're not going to need them.               Date: 05 Dec 2006 02:40:26 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:kP9dh.64392$si3.32906@tornado.socal.rr.com... > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:7Y7dh.192$BL4.49@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > >> Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You > >> have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > >> Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. > >> I > >> mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > >> Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in > >> code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > >> intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize > >> that > >> fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. > > > > LOL. > > > > As for me, I don't think Ramshiva is a whit more intelligent than are you. > > > > But a previously posed question remains: > > > > Just what test was that on? (I suspect it was on the Biggest Little > > Moron's > > test, if any.) > > > >>So how > >> can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > >> decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? > > > > Have you been subject to some potent source of radiation? > > > > To the extent that your hair (and/or leaves?) have begun to fall out, and > > brain damage has resulted in a tendency to project? > > > > Just asking. > > > > (I don't ask about your 'antler' because I do not suppose it has ever been > > any use to you.) > What happened to you in that lowball thread a couple weeks ago, einsteinium? ?? LOL. Are you that deranged in all personae? I remember some doofus saying "wtf" somewhere but I recall no lowball thread. > Looked like you did a lot of work on that. Not ONE fucking response to your > idiocy, huh, except me to say "wtf?" Meanwhile, Ramashiva, your > intellectual superior by at least 3.14159265 lightyears, can discuss ANY > topic and generate huge threads of interest. I have a feeling a lot of > people appreciate what a total Satanist freak you are, and the smart ones > appreciate the BRILLIANCE of Ramashiva. Give your wool sweaters to charity, > Eleacticus, you're not going to need them. LOL. And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling me anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring yourself with it? ROFFLMFAO! -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net >                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:59:32 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:udadh.242$uY1.212@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling > me > anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring > yourself > with it? > I've never said anything about libel or 'anti-semite' anything on this newsgroup. I don't even know what it means. You're confusing me with someone else, mentalbreakdownboy. > ROFFLMFAO! > -- Go ahead and laugh, mutherfucker. Laugh in the flames. Flames and pitchforks and shit.                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:51:03 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist I think you are confusing Paul with William. On Dec 5 2006 3:59 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:udadh.242$uY1.212@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > > And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling > > me > > anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring > > yourself > > with it? > > > > I've never said anything about libel or 'anti-semite' anything on this > newsgroup. I don't even know what it means. You're confusing me with > someone else, mentalbreakdownboy. > > > > ROFFLMFAO! > > -- > > Go ahead and laugh, mutherfucker. Laugh in the flames. Flames and > pitchforks and shit. thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute _____________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 03:07:57 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:Uxadh.64401$si3.12811@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:udadh.242$uY1.212@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > > And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling > > me > > anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring > > yourself > > with it? > > > > I've never said anything about libel or 'anti-semite' anything on this > newsgroup. I don't even know what it means. You're confusing me with > someone else, mentalbreakdownboy. > > > > ROFFLMFAO! > > -- > > Go ahead and laugh, mutherfucker. Laugh in the flames. Flames and > pitchforks and shit. LOL. I'm beginning to think everyone here will by now have recognized your derangement. At first it looks like there is a touch of humor. But then ... How strange that there should be two such deranged and intelligent Virgin-Mary freaks - both hostile to ye olde eleaticke - and that one praises the other so devoutly! You should keep the extreme derangement to just the 'one' persona. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > >                     Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:25:58 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:gDadh.249$uY1.52@bignews7.bellsouth.net... : "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message : news:Uxadh.64401$si3.12811@tornado.socal.rr.com... : > : > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message : > news:udadh.242$uY1.212@bignews7.bellsouth.net... : > : > > : > > And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling : > > me : > > anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring : > > yourself : > > with it? : > > : > : > I've never said anything about libel or 'anti-semite' anything on this : > newsgroup. I don't even know what it means. You're confusing me with : > someone else, mentalbreakdownboy. : > : > : > > ROFFLMFAO! : > > -- : > : > Go ahead and laugh, mutherfucker. Laugh in the flames. Flames and : > pitchforks and shit. : : LOL. : : I'm beginning to think everyone here will by now have recognized your : derangement. : : At first it looks like there is a touch of humor. : : But then ... : : How strange that there should be two such deranged and intelligent : Virgin-Mary freaks - Paul is a Virgin Mary freak? : both hostile to ye olde eleaticke You think I am hostile to you? Where did you ever get that idea? You must still be smarting from the incredibly horrific bitchslapping that Bill Bradley and I administered to you over your inability to correctly parse and interpret a simple English sentence. Now that was a bitchslapping for the ages! And it was one of those crossposted threads that went out to several newsgroups. I would never post again on usenet if I were ever totally humiliated like that. : - and that one praises the other so devoutly! I suggest you get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. : You should keep the extreme derangement to just the 'one' persona. Still operating on the hypothesis that Paul and I are the same person? William Coleman (ramashiva)                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 02:44:40 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:udadh.242$uY1.212@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:kP9dh.64392$si3.32906@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:7Y7dh.192$BL4.49@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > > >> Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? > You > > >> have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > > >> Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. > > >> I > > >> mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > > >> Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything > in > > >> code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > > >> intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize > > >> that > > >> fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. > > > > > > LOL. > > > > > > As for me, I don't think Ramshiva is a whit more intelligent than are > you. > > > > > > But a previously posed question remains: > > > > > > Just what test was that on? (I suspect it was on the Biggest Little > > > Moron's > > > test, if any.) > > > > > >>So how > > >> can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > > >> decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? > > > > > > Have you been subject to some potent source of radiation? > > > > > > To the extent that your hair (and/or leaves?) have begun to fall out, > and > > > brain damage has resulted in a tendency to project? > > > > > > Just asking. > > > > > > (I don't ask about your 'antler' because I do not suppose it has ever > been > > > any use to you.) > > > What happened to you in that lowball thread a couple weeks ago, > einsteinium? > > ?? > > LOL. > > Are you that deranged in all personae? > > I remember some doofus saying "wtf" somewhere but I recall no lowball > thread. > > > Looked like you did a lot of work on that. Not ONE fucking response to > your > > idiocy, huh, except me to say "wtf?" Meanwhile, Ramashiva, your > > intellectual superior by at least 3.14159265 lightyears, can discuss ANY > > topic and generate huge threads of interest. I have a feeling a lot of > > people appreciate what a total Satanist freak you are, and the smart ones > > appreciate the BRILLIANCE of Ramashiva. Give your wool sweaters to > charity, > > Eleacticus, you're not going to need them. > > LOL. > > And all this because I told you that your "sue you for libel for calling me > anti-semite" shit was weird and stupid and that yoiu were injuring yourself > with it? > > ROFFLMFAO! Oh. I know what you are talking about. A probability calculation. Without the damn joker! Just what kind of (long thread) response might I have been looking for? ROFFLMFAO! -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:53:08 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:rhadh.244$uY1.32@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > Oh. I know what you are talking about. A probability calculation. Without > the damn joker! > > Just what kind of (long thread) response might I have been looking for? > How 'bout just one? A followup by you, since you said you were just beginning, fuck face. How 'bout just one, from anyone, anyone who didn't realize what a clueless, no card sense havin friggin Satanist freak you are. Nope. Not ONE!           Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:18:48 From: xyious Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 6:48 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You > have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. I > mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in > code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize that > fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. So how > can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? since only 2% of the population have 132+ i think 200 is just a little bit out of reach.... > > -Paul Popinay -Alexander Knopf http://www.xyious.com/?links ________________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com           Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:05:06 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 9:48 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:p8bf44xo1q.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > > to keep idiots in line. > > > > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in > > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > > > > > Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You > have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. I > mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in > code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize that > fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. So how > can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? You are OUT OF YOUR MIND. > > -Paul Popinay _____________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com             Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:53:15 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 4:05 AM, brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 9:48 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > > news:p8bf44xo1q.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > > > to keep idiots in line. > > > > > > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in > > > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > > > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > > > > > > > > > Brewmaster, how can I take you even the least little bit seriously? You > > have stated in several posts that you do not think Ramashiva, (William > > Coleman) is even intelligent, let alone believe his claim of a 200+ IQ. I > > mean, even the most simple-minded here can appreciate how brilliant > > Ramashiva is. All, that is, except you. And I'm not saying anything in > > code here. I mean exactly what I say. Ramashiva is one of the most > > intelligent human beings on this planet, and you don't even recognize that > > fact. I believe wholeheartedly his claim of having an IQ over 200+. So how > > can I give you any significant credibilty, if I have to explain the > > decisively obvious to the apparently deciduous? > > You are OUT OF YOUR MIND. > TOTALLY > > -Paul Popinay thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute -------  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com         Date: 05 Dec 12:33:32 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 11:04 PM, brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > "brewmaster" wrote in message > > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > > that. > > > > > > > > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > > > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to know > > we exist. > > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > to keep idiots in line. > > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. "God was invented to keep idiots in line." I don't think so, I think..... "God was invented because idiots can't handle their own mortality." Is closer to the truth..... I have also read the bible, I would guess at least 80% of self-proclaimed Christians have not read the book. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:29:51 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165322012$916539@recpoker.com... : : On Dec 4 2006 11:04 PM, brewmaster wrote: : : > On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: : > : > > "brewmaster" wrote in message : > > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... : > > : > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his : > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for : > > > that. : > > > : > > : > > : > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? : > > : > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to know : > > we exist. : > : > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented : > to keep idiots in line. : > : > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe in : > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think : > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. : : "God was invented to keep idiots in line." : : I don't think so, I think..... : : "God was invented because idiots can't handle their own mortality." Why do atheists feel the need to attribute belief in God to some human frailty, from which, of course, atheists are exempt? William Coleman (ramashiva)             Date: 05 Dec 14:18:17 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 7:29 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165322012$916539@recpoker.com... > : > : On Dec 4 2006 11:04 PM, brewmaster wrote: > : > : > On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > > : > > "brewmaster" wrote in message > : > > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > : > > > : > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as > his > : > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too > smart for > : > > > that. > : > > > > : > > > : > > > : > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > : > > > : > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to > know > : > > we exist. > : > > : > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > : > to keep idiots in line. > : > > : > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe > in > : > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > : > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > : > : "God was invented to keep idiots in line." > : > : I don't think so, I think..... > : > : "God was invented because idiots can't handle their own mortality." > > Why do atheists feel the need to attribute belief in God to some human > frailty, from which, of course, atheists are exempt? > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) Atheists are exempt?! Nobody is exempt from the fear of death. People just deal with it in different ways. Ever since the beginning of recorded human history there have been "Gods", and some sort of an "after-life". It's because people are afraid of dieing and no longer existing. Two types of people are best at handling this fear of death. 1) People who have convinced themselves they are going to 'heaven' to live for an eternity. 2) People who have accepted their 40-90 years and a blessing of random chance, and are making the most of it. I must apologize for saying 'idiots', that was way out of line, and not true. Bryan   _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:08:34 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 6:18 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 7:29 AM, William Coleman wrote: > > > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > > news:1165322012$916539@recpoker.com... > > : > > : On Dec 4 2006 11:04 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > : > > : > On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > : > > > : > > "brewmaster" wrote in message > > : > > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > > : > > > > : > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as > > his > > : > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too > > smart for > > : > > > that. > > : > > > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > > : > > > > : > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to > > know > > : > > we exist. > > : > > > : > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > > : > to keep idiots in line. > > : > > > : > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe > > in > > : > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > > : > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > > : > > : "God was invented to keep idiots in line." > > : > > : I don't think so, I think..... > > : > > : "God was invented because idiots can't handle their own mortality." > > > > Why do atheists feel the need to attribute belief in God to some human > > frailty, from which, of course, atheists are exempt? > > > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > Atheists are exempt?! > > Nobody is exempt from the fear of death. People just deal with it in different > ways. Ever since the beginning of recorded human history there have been "Gods", > and some sort of an "after-life". > > It's because people are afraid of dieing and no longer existing. > > Two types of people are best at handling this fear of death. > > 1) People who have convinced themselves they are going to 'heaven' to live for > an eternity. > > 2) People who have accepted their 40-90 years and a blessing of random chance, > and are making the most of it. > > I must apologize for saying 'idiots', that was way out of line, and not true. > > Bryan > > When I said "idiots" that was probably a bit harsh. Part of the reason religion has been so popular, for, well, forever, is that "the masses" tend to do what they want unless held in check by laws of some sort. The easiest laws to get the masses to believe are religious ones. If people "do the right thing" for fear of going to hell, well, everyone is better off, are they not? Look at the ten commandments. Pretty much any civilized society would have to have these if it were to function. "Look what god told me" said Moses. All the better to keep people in line. FWIW, I never said "atheists" are exempt from anything. I also don't like to be labelled as a single thing like "atheist" or "white male" or anything. I'm simply a human being from America. I don't define my life by the fact that I don't believe in god at all. It simply is a _NOT_ for me. It is just fun to try to get religious nuts to give me one single fact that proves the existence of god. > > ______________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com             Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:51:23 From: Olemite Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist I'm sorry, but I'm a religious person and I don't use religion to comfort my fear of dying. It helps guide me through life. Considering that going to church is a "longevity factor" it seems to be working for many people. Ole Bryan Kimmes wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 7:29 AM, William Coleman wrote: > > > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > > news:1165322012$916539@recpoker.com... > > : > > : On Dec 4 2006 11:04 PM, brewmaster wrote: > > : > > : > On Dec 4 2006 8:41 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > : > > > : > > "brewmaster" wrote in message > > : > > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > > : > > > > : > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as > > his > > : > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too > > smart for > > : > > > that. > > : > > > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > > : > > > > : > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to > > know > > : > > we exist. > > : > > > : > Yes, too smart to believe in god. Come on, be serious. God was invented > > : > to keep idiots in line. > > : > > > : > Seriously now, there is not one thing you can say to get me to believe > > in > > : > god. By the way, I've read the entire bible more than once, AND I think > > : > there is good stuff in there, but it is not divine. > > : > > : "God was invented to keep idiots in line." > > : > > : I don't think so, I think..... > > : > > : "God was invented because idiots can't handle their own mortality." > > > > Why do atheists feel the need to attribute belief in God to some human > > frailty, from which, of course, atheists are exempt? > > > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > Atheists are exempt?! > > Nobody is exempt from the fear of death. People just deal with it in different > ways. Ever since the beginning of recorded human history there have been "Gods", > and some sort of an "after-life". > > It's because people are afraid of dieing and no longer existing. > > Two types of people are best at handling this fear of death. > > 1) People who have convinced themselves they are going to 'heaven' to live for > an eternity. > > 2) People who have accepted their 40-90 years and a blessing of random chance, > and are making the most of it. > > I must apologize for saying 'idiots', that was way out of line, and not true. > > Bryan > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:19:40 From: Joe Schmo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Brew-- I think it was socrates that said "I do not know if there is a God or not, but I will live like there is one just in case" or something like that. Its best to hedge your bets on this one!           Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:37:05 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Joe Schmo" <downlowdown@webtv.net > wrote in message news:12739-457660FC-1474@storefull-3353.bay.webtv.net... : Brew-- I think it was socrates that said "I do not know if there is a : God or not, but I will live like there is one just in case" or something : like that. Its best to hedge your bets on this one! I think you are referring to Pascal and his famous wager, which is the earliest example I know of game theoretic thinking. William Coleman (ramashiva)       Date: 05 Dec 2006 04:58:14 From: ShuffletownKid Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:fM6dh.63323$si3.24058@tornado.socal.rr.com... > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:c29f44xeup.ln2@recgroups.com... > >> Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his >> avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart >> for >> that. >> > > > Too smart for God, Brewmaster? Too smart to believe in God? > > Our very existence is unfucking believeable. Yet I'm smart enough to know > we exist. > That explains it.   Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:24:01 From: Howard Beale Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist What does 'Eleaticus' mean or stand for, Mr. E? Howard Beale --------  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com     Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:57:24 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Howard Beale" <a1695@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:1s8f44x9up.ln2@recgroups.com... > What does 'Eleaticus' mean or stand for, Mr. E? An eleatic is a 'fan' of Zeno, and maybe Parmenides, named after their hometown on the back of the ankle of Italy's boot. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net       Date: 04 Dec 2006 23:51:14 From: Howard Beale Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 9:57 PM, eleaticus wrote: > "Howard Beale" <a1695@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:1s8f44x9up.ln2@recgroups.com... > > What does 'Eleaticus' mean or stand for, Mr. E? > > An eleatic is a 'fan' of Zeno, and maybe Parmenides, named after their > hometown on the back of the ankle of Italy's boot. > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net Thank you very much. Googling eleaticus never did me any good but, for those interested, here is this site: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/hop03.htm How very few get to be remembered, much less still discussed, thru the ages. HB -----  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com         Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:19:36 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Howard Beale" <a1695@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:i0lf44xcfq.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 4 2006 9:57 PM, eleaticus wrote: > >> "Howard Beale" <a1695@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >> news:1s8f44x9up.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > What does 'Eleaticus' mean or stand for, Mr. E? >> >> An eleatic is a 'fan' of Zeno, and maybe Parmenides, named after their >> hometown on the back of the ankle of Italy's boot. >> >> -- >> eleaticus >> ee-lee-AT-i-cus >> eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > Thank you very much. Googling eleaticus never did me any good but, for > those interested, here is this site: > > http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/hop03.htm > > > How very few get to be remembered, much less still discussed, thru the > ages. > Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Bite ME with that shit. Please take note of last sentence, second paragraph: "and from the works of Simplicius, who had access to a more complete Eleatic literature than we now possess." Simplicius. lol INDEED!     Date: 05 Dec From: Super Steamer Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 8:24 PM, Howard Beale wrote: > What does 'Eleaticus' mean or stand for, Mr. E? > > > > > Howard Beale It sounds like some kind of Star Trek thingie to me. _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:00:08 From: Omaha8_Beach Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay Are you a Christian? I don't know why I have to ask, it's obvious from your benevolent concern for Eleaticus and your fellow man that you are. Ken   Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:58:14 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:MP5dh.47322$Fg.10154@tornado.socal.rr.com... > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. Oh, btw, the Devil doesn't fry. If there is any frying he/she/it is the fryer. The reason it is hot some places in Hell is so your Virgin (hah!) Mary feels good bare butt when she makes one of those prolonged 'visits' (yes, she keeps rooms in Heaven, but is rarely seen there). -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net   Date: 05 Dec From: str8jacket Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are wrong. If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. On Dec 4 2006 10:37 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 04:08:17 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "str8jacket" <thenthdegree@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are > wrong. > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, I have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there.       Date: 05 Dec 2006 09:12:53 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 6:25 am, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. > > You would also know the following. > > A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long long > long time ago to scare people into going to church. That depends on what you mean by "a place called Hell". Various New Testament books in the King James Bible, for instance, contain over 50 references to something(s) translated as "hell" (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not), so it most certainly is in the Bible (assuming you're referring to commonly used Christian Bibles, of course.) > And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > > You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > > 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from each of > the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > > You can find that in Revolutions. Revolutions? Is that after the book of Parentheses?       Date: 05 Dec 17:11:59 From: freakinfoldalready Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist all this coming from a group of people who pirated Pagan beliefs to make up their own religion.  Not 1 original thought in Christianity. On Dec 4 2006 11:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "str8jacket" wrote in message > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are > > wrong. > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > > > > > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, I > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:09:07 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist I believe Paul may have been speaking about you in this passage: 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. Bryan Kimmes wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > > "str8jacket" wrote in message > > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > > > > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you > > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are > > > wrong. > > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > > > > > > > > > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, I > > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. > > The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. > > You would also know the following. > > A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long long > long time ago to scare people into going to church. > > And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > > You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > > 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from each of > the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > > You can find that in Revolutions. > > Bryan > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 05 Dec 12:25:15 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "str8jacket" wrote in message > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are > > wrong. > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > > > > > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, I > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. You would also know the following. A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long long long time ago to scare people into going to church. And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. You can find that in Revolutions. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:54:51 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... : : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: : : > "str8jacket" wrote in message : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians are : > > wrong. : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. : > > : > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, I : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. : : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. : : You would also know the following. : : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long long : long time ago to scare people into going to church. : : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... : : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. : : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from each of : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. : : You can find that in Revolutions. No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. William Coleman (ramashiva) : : Bryan : : : _______________________________________________________________ : Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 05 Dec 13:01:22 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... > : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > : > > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians > are > : > > wrong. > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > : > > > : > > : > > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, > I > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. > : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. > : > : You would also know the following. > : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long > long > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. > : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from > each of > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > : > : You can find that in Revolutions. > > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? > > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. > Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, how do you interpret it? Bryan > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > : > : Bryan > : > : > : _______________________________________________________________ > : Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - / _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:27:04 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165323682$916548@recpoker.com... : On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: : : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message : > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... : > : : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: : > : : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message : > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... : > : > : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to you : > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so non-christians : > are : > : > > wrong. : > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. : > : > > : > : > : > : > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For instance, : > I : > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down there. : > : : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the thing. : > : : > : You would also know the following. : > : : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a long : > long : > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. : > : : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... : > : : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. : > : : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 from : > each of : > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. : > : : > : You can find that in Revolutions. : > : > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not : > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his : > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the : > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? : > : > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. : > : : Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. : : But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, The name of the book is "Revelation" not "Revelations". : how do you interpret it? Here is an interpretation I am comfortable with -- http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20061629 William Coleman (ramashiva)               Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:20:48 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist You should have kept reading...in Revelation 7:9 it states: The Great Multitude in White Robes Rev 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that NO ONE COULD COUNT, FROM EVERY NATION, TRIBE, PEOPLE AND LANGUAGE, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. Rev 7:10 And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." Rev 7:11 All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces i before the throne and worshiped God, Rev 7:12 saying: "Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!" Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes -who are they, and where did they come from?" Rev 7:14 I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev 7:15 Therefore, "they are before the throne of God n and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Rev 7:16 Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. Rev 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Bryan Kimmes wrote: > On Dec 5 2006 7:27 AM, William Coleman wrote: > > > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > > news:1165323682$916548@recpoker.com... > > : On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: > > : > > : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > > : > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... > > : > : > > : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > > : > : > > : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message > > : > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > > : > : > > > : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to > > you > > : > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so > > non-christians > > : > are > > : > : > > wrong. > > : > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > > : > : > > > > : > : > > > : > : > > > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For > > instance, > > : > I > > : > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down > > there. > > : > : > > : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the > > thing. > > : > : > > : > : You would also know the following. > > : > : > > : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a > > long > > : > long > > : > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. > > : > : > > : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > > : > : > > : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > > : > : > > : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 > > from > > : > each of > > : > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > > : > : > > : > : You can find that in Revolutions. > > : > > > : > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not > > : > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his > > : > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the > > : > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? > > : > > > : > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. > > : > > > : > > : Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. > > : > > : But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, > > > > The name of the book is "Revelation" not "Revelations". > > > > : how do you interpret it? > > > > Here is an interpretation I am comfortable with -- > > > > http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20061629 > > > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) > > From the Bible: > *** > > "Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living > God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power > to harm the land and the sea: 'Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees > until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.' Then I heard > the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel." > > *** > > The Bible is very tough to interpret, but here is what I read. > > 4 angels are coming to earth to do big time damage, but they can't start until > 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel(jewish descendants) are given a mark on > their foreheads(I assume this mark is so they will not be harmed in the > process). > > This sounds like bad news for anyone who doesn't get a mark (anyone who is not a > descendant from one of the 12 tribes). > > Bryan > > _______________________________________________________________ > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 05 Dec 13:54:25 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 7:27 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165323682$916548@recpoker.com... > : On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: > : > : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > : > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... > : > : > : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > : > : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message > : > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > : > : > > : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to > you > : > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so > non-christians > : > are > : > : > > wrong. > : > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > : > : > > > : > : > > : > : > > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For > instance, > : > I > : > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down > there. > : > : > : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the > thing. > : > : > : > : You would also know the following. > : > : > : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a > long > : > long > : > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. > : > : > : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > : > : > : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > : > : > : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 > from > : > each of > : > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > : > : > : > : You can find that in Revolutions. > : > > : > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not > : > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his > : > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the > : > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? > : > > : > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. > : > > : > : Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. > : > : But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, > > The name of the book is "Revelation" not "Revelations". > > : how do you interpret it? > > Here is an interpretation I am comfortable with -- > > http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20061629 > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) From the Bible: *** "Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 'Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.' Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel." *** The Bible is very tough to interpret, but here is what I read. 4 angels are coming to earth to do big time damage, but they can't start until 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel(jewish descendants) are given a mark on their foreheads(I assume this mark is so they will not be harmed in the process). This sounds like bad news for anyone who doesn't get a mark (anyone who is not a descendant from one of the 12 tribes). Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:50:38 From: Mark B \(Diputsur\) Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165326865$916562@recpoker.com... > The Bible is very tough to interpret, but here is what I read. > > 4 angels are coming to earth to do big time damage, but they can't start > until > 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel (jewish descendants) The chosen people... right up until about 2000 years ago and then they blew it! > are given a mark on > their foreheads(I assume this mark is so they will not be harmed in the > process). > > This sounds like bad news for anyone who doesn't get a mark (anyone who is > not a > descendant from one of the 12 tribes). Well, some of them forged ahead and started a new religion... guess they'll be the ones with a mark ;-) Mark -- www.myspace.com/diputsur               Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:36:11 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:Isedh.7678$1s6.97@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net> wrote in message > news:1165323682$916548@recpoker.com... > : On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: > : > : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > : > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... > : > : > : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > : > : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message > : > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... > : > : > > : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak to > you > : > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so > non-christians > : > are > : > : > > wrong. > : > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. > : > : > > > : > : > > : > : > > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For > instance, > : > I > : > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down > there. > : > : > : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the > thing. > : > : > : > : You would also know the following. > : > : > : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a > long > : > long > : > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. > : > : > : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... > : > : > : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. > : > : > : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 > from > : > each of > : > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. > : > : > : > : You can find that in Revolutions. > : > > : > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are not > : > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his > : > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about the > : > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? > : > > : > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. > : > > : > : Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. > : > : But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, > > The name of the book is "Revelation" not "Revelations". > > : how do you interpret it? > > Here is an interpretation I am comfortable with -- > > http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20061629 LOL. God sure screwed up badly 'inspiring' all those ignorant ancients into writing things that are not just contrdictory but in any case needs interpretation. Perhaps God had nothing to do with it. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net                 Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:46:28 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:rIkdh.443$BL4.422@bignews2.bellsouth.net... : "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message : news:Isedh.7678$1s6.97@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... : > : > "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net> wrote in message : > news:1165323682$916548@recpoker.com... : > : On Dec 5 2006 6:54 AM, William Coleman wrote: : > : : > : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message : > : > news:1165321515$916536@recpoker.com... : > : > : : > : > : On Dec 4 2006 10:08 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: : > : > : : > : > : > "str8jacket" wrote in message : > : > : > news:1165290833$916375@recpoker.com... : > : > : > : > : > : > > Must be nice to have all the answers. Tell me... Does God speak : to : > you : > : > : > > personally? It's a shame that all us 3 billion or so : > non-christians : > : > are : > : > : > > wrong. : > : > : > > If only we were as enlightened as you, you obnoxious turd. : > : > : > > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > I'm not a smug know-it-all. I don't have all the answers. For : > instance, : > : > I : > : > : > have no idea how they're going to fit all 3 billion of you down : > there. : > : > : : > : > : The Bible is a book of fiction, you would know that if you read the : > thing. : > : > : : > : > : You would also know the following. : > : > : : > : > : A place called "Hell" is not in the Bible, the idea was invented a : > long : > : > long : > : > : long time ago to scare people into going to church. : > : > : : > : > : And here is one I know you won't be able to handle..... : > : > : : > : > : You have NO SHOT at getting into "Heaven" according to The Bible. : > : > : : > : > : 144,000 people are going to "Heaven" according to The Bible, 12,000 : > from : > : > each of : > : > : the 12 tribes, all of them being Jewish people. : > : > : : > : > : You can find that in Revolutions. : > : > : > : > No you can't. That is the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses, who are : not : > : > even Christians, since they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his : > : > physical resurrection. Is that where you get your information about : the : > : > Bible? From Watchtower pamphlets? : > : > : > : > I assume "Revolutions" is your feeble attempt at humor. : > : > : > : : > : Nope, my feeble attempt at using a spell checker. : > : : > : But it is in The Bible, read Revelations chapter 7, : > : > The name of the book is "Revelation" not "Revelations". : > : > : how do you interpret it? : > : > Here is an interpretation I am comfortable with -- : > : > http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20061629 : : LOL. : : God sure screwed up badly 'inspiring' all those ignorant ancients into : writing things that are not just contrdictory but in any case needs : interpretation. Well, much more than any other book of the Bible, Revelation certainly needs interpretation. I don't expect to see a seven-headed, ten-horned beast ridden by a woman in scarlet emerge from the sea. : Perhaps God had nothing to do with it. Perhaps. William Coleman (ramashiva)                   Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:16:10 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:EUkdh.7787$1s6.682@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:rIkdh.443$BL4.422@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > : > : God sure screwed up badly 'inspiring' all those ignorant ancients into > : writing things that are not just contrdictory but in any case needs > : interpretation. > > Well, much more than any other book of the Bible, Revelation certainly > needs > interpretation. I don't expect to see a seven-headed, ten-horned beast > ridden by a woman in scarlet emerge from the sea. > But we should EXPECT Eleaticus to say something like that. He's a Satan worshipper. Hence, my suggestion of what should become of him, and the referrence to fajitas.       Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:51:05 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 11:11 am, freakinfoldalready <43085...@recpoker.com > wrote: > > all this coming from a group of people who pirated Pagan beliefs to make up > their own religion. Not 1 original thought in Christianity. Actually, that whole "love they neighbor as thyself" thing was quite a novel religious concept at the time. I'm not even a Christian and I can't help but shake my head at how clueless some religion critics are.     Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:15:46 From: Joe Schmo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist I thought Satan was supposed to have been the most beautiful angel. Who really know what he looks like if he exists. I know, Satan was red with horns and a tail, Jesus looked like a hippie and at the last supper everyone sat on one side of the table.   Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:54:49 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:MP5dh.47322$Fg.10154@tornado.socal.rr.com... > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. I'm told what you must be talking about. It makes you kinda funny, as hee hee, and kinda funny, as in weird although I guess you can't be blamed very much for your basic error. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net   Date: 05 Dec From: Porsche_Dan Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay Look at his pic on his website. Pure E V I L !!!!!!!!!!!! Actually he is a harmless old man with more IQ than personality. _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:35:54 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist where is his web site? do u have a link? On Dec 4 2006 10:40 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote: > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > Look at his pic on his website. Pure E V I L !!!!!!!!!!!! Actually he is a > harmless old man with more IQ than personality. thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute ______________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com     Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:32:03 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 10:40 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote: > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > Look at his pic on his website. Pure E V I L !!!!!!!!!!!! Actually he is a > harmless old man with more IQ than personality. He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of interests and thoughts. he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute _______________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com       Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:42:30 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 8:32 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 10:40 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote: > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is > a > > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > > > Look at his pic on his website. Pure E V I L !!!!!!!!!!!! Actually he is a > > harmless old man with more IQ than personality. > > > He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of > interests and thoughts. > he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus > What do you mean prefers? Ele...and ele... are completely different. It isn't a preference thing. Do you prefer me to call you pokerchimp or joe? > thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute -----  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com         Date: 04 Dec 2006 23:11:18 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message news:mu9f44xlvp.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 4 2006 8:32 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > > He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of > > interests and thoughts. > > he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus > > > > What do you mean prefers? Ele...and ele... are completely different. And the way I spell is ... what? -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net           Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:20:58 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4 2006 9:11 PM, eleaticus wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:mu9f44xlvp.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Dec 4 2006 8:32 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > > > > He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of > > > interests and thoughts. > > > he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus > > > > > > > What do you mean prefers? Ele...and ele... are completely different. > > And the way I spell is ... what? > I was just saying the two spellings are different..different words. You spell it lower case e. > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net ________________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com         Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:59:39 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist i understand, but he has made a point of it On Dec 4 2006 11:42 PM, brewmaster wrote: > On Dec 4 2006 8:32 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > > > On Dec 4 2006 10:40 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote: > > > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. > The > > > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz > is > > a > > > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > > > > > Look at his pic on his website. Pure E V I L !!!!!!!!!!!! Actually he is a > > > harmless old man with more IQ than personality. > > > > > > He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of > > interests and thoughts. > > he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus > > > > What do you mean prefers? Ele...and ele... are completely different. It > isn't a preference thing. Do you prefer me to call you pokerchimp or joe? > > > thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute -----  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com   Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:19:36 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 12:03 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com > wrote: > > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since > the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever > visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more > advanced than us. Oh, bullshit! From what bodily orifice are you pulling all of your thoroughly clueless clap-trap? "Close to having the ability to travel to other solar systems?" ROFLMAO!!! You don't know your own ass from a hole in the ground on this subject. And even if there were hundreds of extra-terrestrial species out there with the capacity for intersteller travel the odds of them stumbling across our little rock is...well...astronomical. You clearly have no idea how big the known universe is...nor really much of anything regarding the subject you're so arrogantly spouting off about.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:34:59 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 11:19 AM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 12:03 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: > > > > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since > > the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > > systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > > advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever > > visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more > > advanced than us. > > Oh, bullshit! From what bodily orifice are you pulling all of your > thoroughly clueless clap-trap? "Close to having the ability to travel > to other solar systems?" ROFLMAO!!! You don't know your own ass from > a hole in the ground on this subject. And even if there were hundreds > of extra-terrestrial species out there with the capacity for > intersteller travel the odds of them stumbling across our little rock > is...well...astronomical. You clearly have no idea how big the known > universe is...nor really much of anything regarding the subject you're > so arrogantly spouting off about. Oh, you think I made that up? I got that directly from Stephen Hawking, thank you very much. _______________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:05:33 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165346376.263804.65590@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 12:03 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: > > > > The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since > > the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar > > systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more > > advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever > > visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more > > advanced than us. > > Oh, bullshit! From what bodily orifice are you pulling all of your > thoroughly clueless clap-trap? "Close to having the ability to travel > to other solar systems?" ROFLMAO!!! You don't know your own ass from > a hole in the ground on this subject. And even if there were hundreds > of extra-terrestrial species out there with the capacity for > intersteller travel the odds of them stumbling across our little rock > is...well...astronomical. Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to discuss finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves for such a century. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net     Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:43:24 From: Susan Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/sc...of10/index.html "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165346376.263804.65590@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 12:03 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: >> >> The current thinking by the majority of eminent physicists is that, since >> the human race is so close to having the ability to travel to other solar >> systems, any sentient life in other parts of the universe that are more >> advanced than us already have this ability. Since no "aliens" have ever >> visited us, there must be no life in the universe significantly more >> advanced than us. > > Oh, bullshit! From what bodily orifice are you pulling all of your > thoroughly clueless clap-trap? "Close to having the ability to travel > to other solar systems?" ROFLMAO!!! You don't know your own ass from > a hole in the ground on this subject. And even if there were hundreds > of extra-terrestrial species out there with the capacity for > intersteller travel the odds of them stumbling across our little rock > is...well...astronomical. You clearly have no idea how big the known > universe is...nor really much of anything regarding the subject you're > so arrogantly spouting off about. >   Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:13:33 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist William Coleman wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > : > : William Coleman wrote: > : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > : > : > : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he > posts > : > about > : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right > to > : > post > : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing > he > : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in > my > : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. > : > : > > : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this > newsgroup. > : > The > : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that > Igotskillz > : > is a > : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to > fry > : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > : > : > > : > : > -Paul Popinjay > : > : > : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > : > : > : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as > : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back > : > > : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? > : > : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? > > Yes. > > : Have you seen him? > > Yes. > > : What was he wearing? > > A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. Heh. > : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into > war > : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary > beast > : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he > walked > : > : up to you tomorrow? > : > : > : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read > : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > : > > : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches which > : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. > : > > : > > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) > : > : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of > : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the > : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of > : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six > : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get > : their due. > > Everyone will get their due. > > : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? > > Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are talking > about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify their > behavior. I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. > : According to > : Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle > : than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the > : majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to the > : people of other countries? > > Rich. Then do you believe the majority of Christians in the US are going to heaven? > > William Coleman (ramashiva)     Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:40:57 From: ShuffletownKid Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165342413.799245.115880@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > William Coleman wrote: >> <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> : >> : William Coleman wrote: >> : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> : > : >> : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: >> : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. >> : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he >> posts >> : > about >> : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no >> right >> to >> : > post >> : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only >> thing >> he >> : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And >> in >> my >> : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. >> : > : > >> : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this >> newsgroup. >> : > The >> : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that >> Igotskillz >> : > is a >> : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going >> to >> fry >> : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. >> : > : > >> : > : > -Paul Popinjay >> : > : >> : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? >> : > : >> : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back >> as >> : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come >> back >> : > >> : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? >> : >> : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? >> >> Yes. >> >> : Have you seen him? >> >> Yes. >> >> : What was he wearing? >> >> A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. > > Heh. > >> : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into >> war >> : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary >> beast >> : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's >> : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he >> walked >> : > : up to you tomorrow? >> : > : >> : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? >> Read >> : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. >> : > >> : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches >> which >> : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. >> : > >> : > >> : > William Coleman (ramashiva) >> : >> : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of >> : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the >> : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of >> : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six >> : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get >> : their due. >> >> Everyone will get their due. >> >> : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? >> >> Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are >> talking >> about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify >> their >> behavior. > > I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of > ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six > figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of > coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have > all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who > disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be > Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous > expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. Good thought. Every time I see a church I think, what a nice empty climate controlled building... That could house the homeless or be a poker room. Hell, the homeless could operate poker rooms. I would even be willing to share, on Sunday and Wednesday night we could have three card monty tables for the Christians. >> : According to >> : Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle >> : than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the >> : majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to the >> : people of other countries? >> >> Rich. > > Then do you believe the majority of Christians in the US are going to > heaven? > >> >> William Coleman (ramashiva) >       Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:41:20 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "ShuffletownKid" <sk@nospamserver.com > wrote in message news:Z2jdh.72535$HD6.57944@tornado.southeast.rr.com... > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165342413.799245.115880@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > William Coleman wrote: > >> <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >> : > >> : William Coleman wrote: > >> : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> : > : > >> : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: > >> : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > >> : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he > >> posts > >> : > about > >> : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no > >> right > >> to > >> : > post > >> : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only > >> thing > >> he > >> : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And > >> in > >> my > >> : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. > >> : > : > > >> : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this > >> newsgroup. > >> : > The > >> : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that > >> Igotskillz > >> : > is a > >> : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going > >> to > >> fry > >> : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > >> : > : > > >> : > : > -Paul Popinjay > >> : > : > >> : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > >> : > : > >> : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back > >> as > >> : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come > >> back > >> : > > >> : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? > >> : > >> : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> : Have you seen him? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> : What was he wearing? > >> > >> A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. > > > > Heh. > > > >> : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into > >> war > >> : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary > >> beast > >> : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > >> : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he > >> walked > >> : > : up to you tomorrow? > >> : > : > >> : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? > >> Read > >> : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > >> : > > >> : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches > >> which > >> : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > William Coleman (ramashiva) > >> : > >> : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of > >> : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the > >> : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of > >> : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six > >> : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get > >> : their due. > >> > >> Everyone will get their due. > >> > >> : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? > >> > >> Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are > >> talking > >> about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify > >> their > >> behavior. > > > > I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of > > ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six > > figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of > > coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have > > all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who > > disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be > > Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous > > expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. > > Good thought. Every time I see a church I think, what a nice empty climate > controlled building... That could house the homeless or be a poker room. > Hell, the homeless could operate poker rooms. I would even be willing to > share, on Sunday and Wednesday night we could have three card monty tables > for the Christians. LOL -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net     Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:49:07 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165342413.799245.115880@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... : : William Coleman wrote: : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message : > news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... : > : : > : William Coleman wrote: : > : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message : > : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... : > : > : : > : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: : > : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. : > : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he : > posts : > : > about : > : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right : > to : > : > post : > : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing : > he : > : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in : > my : > : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. : > : > : > : > : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this : > newsgroup. : > : > The : > : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that : > Igotskillz : > : > is a : > : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to : > fry : > : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. : > : > : > : > : > : > -Paul Popinjay : > : > : : > : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? : > : > : : > : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as : > : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back : > : > : > : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? : > : : > : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? : > : > Yes. : > : > : Have you seen him? : > : > Yes. : > : > : What was he wearing? : > : > A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. : : Heh. : : > : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into : > war : > : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary : > beast : > : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's : > : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he : > walked : > : > : up to you tomorrow? : > : > : : > : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read : > : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. : > : > : > : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches which : > : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. : > : > : > : > : > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) : > : : > : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of : > : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the : > : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of : > : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six : > : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get : > : their due. : > : > Everyone will get their due. : > : > : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? : > : > Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are talking : > about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify their : > behavior. : : I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of : ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six : figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of : coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have : all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who : disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be : Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous : expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. Agreed. : > : According to : > : Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle : > : than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the : > : majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to the : > : people of other countries? : > : > Rich. : : Then do you believe the majority of Christians in the US are going to : heaven? Nope. I think very few are. And I probably won't either. That's why I have internalized the prayer -- "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on my soul." I have repeated this prayer so much that it is constantly running in the back of my mind. I recommend this as a Christian meditation mantra. "Lord Jesus Christ" on inhalation. "Have mercy on my soul" on exhalation. William Coleman (ramashiva)     Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:29:43 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On 5 Dec 2006 10:13:33 -0800, trangers16@hotmail.com wrote: >I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of >ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six >figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of >coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have >all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who >disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be >Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous >expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. Spending $5 on a cup of coffee is reasonable, but should be preferred only when the people actually growing the coffee are compensated fairly. I'm not referring here to the overpriced shit at Starbucks, which is inferior coffee marked up for obscene profits to be marketed to morons, but Fair Trade coffees and teas. These are generally more expensive than their mass-produced counterparts, but are also generally of higher quality. I don't see any reason luxury in itself should be decried. I'm not going to feel a bit guilty for enjoying filet mignon or lobster, or a $5 cup of coffee (or a $10 cup of coffee for that matter). But I do like to direct my money in ways that favor fairness, whenever there is such an alternative.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:12:50 From: XaQ Morphy Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. Veal fajitas? Morphy http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com   Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:55:21 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist William Coleman wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts > about > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to > post > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > : > opinion, that's not long enough. > : > > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. > The > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz > is a > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > : > > : > -Paul Popinjay > : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back > > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? I dunno. Do you know the Devil? Have you seen him? What was he wearing? > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked > : up to you tomorrow? > : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches which > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get their due. How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? According to Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to the people of other countries?     Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:09:29 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... : : William Coleman wrote: : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... : > : : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts : > about : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to : > post : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. : > : > : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. : > The : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz : > is a : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. : > : > : > : > -Paul Popinjay : > : : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? : > : : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back : > : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? : : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? Yes. : Have you seen him? Yes. : What was he wearing? A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked : > : up to you tomorrow? : > : : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. : > : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches which : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. : > : > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) : : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority of : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will get : their due. Everyone will get their due. : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are talking about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify their behavior. : According to : Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle : than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the : majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to the : people of other countries? Rich. William Coleman (ramashiva)       Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:08:15 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:dJhdh.7087$ql2.2486@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > : > : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? > > Yes. > > : Have you seen him? > > Yes. > > : What was he wearing? > > A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. > Ha! Good one, Ramashiva!   Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:28:29 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked up to you tomorrow? As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:19:38 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > > Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as > a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back > as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war > of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast > who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked > up to you tomorrow? > I'll bet you're one of these intolerant European fucks. Because I have not noticed you on this newsgroup before. Where do you get off? And look at the foolishness you spew because everyone knows what the devil looks like, you fool, with being red and having a couple horns and a tail, and has a pitchfork with him a lot of times. You are an intolerant fool. Please, I am considering killfiling you. > As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read > John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > Oh? Look who's talking, fuck face. I have never said that I was a Christian. I said that Igotskillz is a good Christian, and that Eleaticus is an evil Satanist, but I have never stated my beliefs. Thankyou for showing us all what a hypocrite you are in passing judgement on people you don't know because of your closed-mindedness and intolerance. So typical of you European Nazis. -Paul Popinjay       Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:44:35 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:eDjdh.47447$Fg.13146@tornado.socal.rr.com... > I'll bet you're one of these intolerant European fucks. Because I have not > noticed you on this newsgroup before. Where do you get off? And look at > the foolishness you spew because everyone knows what the devil looks like, > you fool, with being red and having a couple horns and a tail, and has a > pitchfork with him a lot of times. You are an intolerant fool. Please, I > am considering killfiling you. ROFFLMFAO! I think your claim you saw my avatar means you saw something BLUE. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net     Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:42:38 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... : : Paul Popinjay wrote: : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my : > opinion, that's not long enough. : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. : > : > -Paul Popinjay : : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? : : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked : up to you tomorrow? : : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches which teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. William Coleman (ramashiva)     Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:38:52 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > Paul Popinjay wrote: > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > > opinion, that's not long enough. > > > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > > > -Paul Popinjay > > Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? I think 'he' (PP - giggle, how appropriate!) believes the Devil lives in Durham, NC. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net     Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:40:43 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist FL Turbo wrote: > On 6 Dec 2006 11:55:36 -0800, trangers16@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > >Paul Popinjay wrote: > >> <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1165422817.472757.195890@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > > >> > Oh, I'm going to read your posts AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT > >> > IT. Just try to stop me. > >> > > >> > >> Oh? You think I won't do anything if you defy my demands and instead > >> continue to read my posts anyway? Just keep pushing me, trangers16, and > >> I'll report you. > > > >Report ME?!?!?! I'll report YOU! Keep it up...you'll see.... > > > >> >And I am racist, but not against black > >> > people, against gingers. Damn those gingers and their fiery > >> > dispositions... > >> > > >> > >> I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what a 'ginger' > >> is. But let me ask you a question. Have you ever eaten Ginger raw? > > > >I'm more of a Mary Ann guy myself. But take 20 years off Mrs. Howell... > > I am proud to report that I could never watch more than about 10 > minutes of Gilligan's Island without walking away grumbling about what > a damn stupid waste of valuable Teevee time it was. > > But then, I always watched the Beverly Hillbillies and thought it was > funnier than Hell. > Put Ginger and Mary Ann together and they still wouldn't make one > Ellie May Clampett. > > > Go figger, eh? Beverly Hillbillies? Please. That's B material compared to Gilligan's Island. Now, if we're talking the best one two punch, that'd have to be Dragnet and Get Smart. If only TVland was smart enough to land the rights to these shows, they could make a killling. Although I will concede on the Ellie May part...she is a fox.     Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:40:33 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6, 2:35 pm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com > wrote: > > Put Ginger and Mary Ann together and they still wouldn't make one > Ellie May Clampett. All three of whom pale in comparison with Barbara Eden's "Jeanie". A gorgeous blonde in a harem-girl outfit with magic powers eager to do nothing but satisfy your every desire? I mean...if you like that sort of thing....   Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:49:08 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com > wrote: > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > that. I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:12:08 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On 5 Dec 2006 07:49:08 -0800, "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: >> Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his >> avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for >> that. >I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped >by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. You have to admit this is a much better troll than the "How many gay poker players" shit, or even the "I live in my mother's cellar which is wallpapered with posters of the clean and sober poker genius Stuey Ungar" troll.       Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:42:08 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message news:r2hbn21cbgr4ibv9apq63renrjhqk9o903@4ax.com... > On 5 Dec 2006 07:49:08 -0800, "WuzYoungOnceToo" > <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: > >>> Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his >>> avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart >>> for >>> that. > >>I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped >>by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. > > You have to admit this is a much better troll than the "How many gay > poker players" shit, or even the "I live in my mother's cellar which is > wallpapered with posters of the clean and sober poker genius > Stuey Ungar" troll. y'know what, Jacks? you're starting to get on my nerves.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:12:44 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165332669.833764.169740@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: > > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > that. > > I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped > by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. ?? You mean you think he is troll-only? Well, yes, he is in part on that side of the 'fence' but you are deluded if you think he is not also the deranged nut-job he posts as here. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net >       Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:14:08 From: Susan Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist trust me - I know first hand. He is indeed the deranged nut-job he posts as here. "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:Ieldh.464$BL4.320@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1165332669.833764.169740@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... >> On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: >> > >> > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as >> > his >> > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart > for >> > that. >> >> I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped >> by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. > > ?? > > You mean you think he is troll-only? > > Well, yes, he is in part on that side of the 'fence' but you are deluded > if > you think he is not also the deranged nut-job he posts as here. > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net > >> > >       Date: 06 Dec 10:23:16 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:10 PM, eleaticus wrote: > "WuzYoungOnceToo" wrote in message > news:1165332669.833764.169740@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" wrote: > > > > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart > for > > > that. > > > > I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped > > by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. > > ?? > > You mean you think he is troll-only? > > Well, yes, he is in part on that side of the 'fence' but you are deluded if > you think he is not also the deranged nut-job he posts as here. I don't know what you ever did to the guy. He just started attacking you and IgotSkillz for some reason. Bryan > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > > _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:55:20 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165400596$917109@recpoker.com... > > > I don't know what you ever did to the guy. He just started attacking you > and > IgotSkillz for some reason. > You idiot, Bryan. I didn't attack both of them. I said Igotskillz is a good Christian. He's going to Heaven. It's ELEATICUS who is the Satanist freak. HE is the one who is going to suffer and burn for eternity. And rightfully so.           Date: 07 Dec 10:24:09 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 7:55 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165400596$917109@recpoker.com... > > > > > > I don't know what you ever did to the guy. He just started attacking you > > and > > IgotSkillz for some reason. > > > > You idiot, Bryan. I didn't attack both of them. I said Igotskillz is a > good Christian. He's going to Heaven. It's ELEATICUS who is the Satanist > freak. HE is the one who is going to suffer and burn for eternity. And > rightfully so. He is a Duke fan, it is their team mascott. If you don't follow college basketball, that is just like being a New York Yankee fan.... Being a Duke fan is probably worse than being a Satanist. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:34:33 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. > > I was duped. You were. Anybody who's read more than a handful of Paul's posts and has an I.Q. greater than that of a sponge can easily spot these things. Then again, given your ignorant Biblical rantings we might have to disqualify you on at least one of those criteria.       Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:49:10 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6, 3:51 am, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > Hey I caught on after a while. And it only took repeated clubbings over the head with the obvious. > Run me into the ground all you want, your use of insults is oddly satisfying.... Pardon me, Captain Hypocrisy. > King James threw out all the books that were over-the-top ridiculous Why do you feel so compelled to continue commenting on things about which you're completely ignorant? The Hampton Court Conference did not throw out ANY books that were included in the then-existant commonly-used Bibles (The Bishop's and Geneva versions). > and The Bible still doesn't come in close to reality. Could you be a little more vague? > I find it humorous that if King James had decided to go a different direction, > you would be saying > > "Bryan Kimmes is as smart as a sponge because he doesn't believe in Zeus." You're the king of meaningless statements.       Date: 06 Dec From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 2:34 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > > > > Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. > > > > I was duped. > > You were. Anybody who's read more than a handful of Paul's posts and > has an I.Q. greater than that of a sponge can easily spot these things. > Then again, given your ignorant Biblical rantings we might have to > disqualify you on at least one of those criteria. Hey I caught on after a while. Run me into the ground all you want, your use of insults is oddly satisfying.... King James threw out all the books that were over-the-top ridiculous and The Bible still doesn't come in close to reality. I find it humorous that if King James had decided to go a different direction, you would be saying "Bryan Kimmes is as smart as a sponge because he doesn't believe in Zeus." Bryan _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:04:20 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165398710$917101@recpoker.com... : On Dec 5 2006 2:34 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: : : > On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: : > > : > > Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. : > > : > > I was duped. : > : > You were. Anybody who's read more than a handful of Paul's posts and : > has an I.Q. greater than that of a sponge can easily spot these things. : > Then again, given your ignorant Biblical rantings we might have to : > disqualify you on at least one of those criteria. : : Hey I caught on after a while. : : Run me into the ground all you want, your use of insults is oddly satisfying.... : : King James threw out all the books that were over-the-top ridiculous LOL. Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could you? Seriously, Bryan, your knowledge of the Bible cannot even charitably be described as superficial. The New Testament Canon was established over a thousand years before the King James translation. The Catholic Bible contained some intertestamental books, usually referred to as the Apocrypha, which aren't in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV omits those books. There were no books thrown out as over-the-top ridiculous. : and The Bible still doesn't come in close to reality. You mean it doesn't come close to your opinions about reality. : I find it humorous that if King James had decided to go a different direction, : you would be saying : : "Bryan Kimmes is as smart as a sponge because he doesn't believe in Zeus." 100% false. There is nothing in the Apocrypha about Zeus. You haven't yet learned a painful lesson about RGP -- No matter what subject you post on, there are people reading RGP who know more about the subject than you do. If you don't want to make a fool of yourself, make sure you know what you are talking about before you post. I learned this lesson early on. You obviously have not. William Coleman (ramashiva)           Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:33:55 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:E5Adh.7345 > > You haven't yet learned a painful lesson about RGP -- No matter what > subject > you post on, there are people reading RGP who know more about the subject > than you do. If you don't want to make a fool of yourself, make sure you > know what you are talking about before you post. > > I learned this lesson early on. You obviously have not. > In other words, Bryan, have a nice warm cup of STFU, lest you be continually bitch-slapped by the Ramashivameister.           Date: 07 Dec 10:21:47 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 8:04 AM, William Coleman wrote: > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message > news:1165398710$917101@recpoker.com... > : On Dec 5 2006 2:34 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > : > : > On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: > : > > > : > > Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. > : > > > : > > I was duped. > : > > : > You were. Anybody who's read more than a handful of Paul's posts and > : > has an I.Q. greater than that of a sponge can easily spot these things. > : > Then again, given your ignorant Biblical rantings we might have to > : > disqualify you on at least one of those criteria. > : > : Hey I caught on after a while. > : > : Run me into the ground all you want, your use of insults is oddly > satisfying.... > : > : King James threw out all the books that were over-the-top ridiculous > > LOL. Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could you? Seriously, Bryan, > your knowledge of the Bible cannot even charitably be described as > superficial. The New Testament Canon was established over a thousand years > before the King James translation. The Catholic Bible contained some > intertestamental books, usually referred to as the Apocrypha, which aren't > in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV omits those books. There were no books thrown > out as over-the-top ridiculous. Thank you for the information. I may one day decide to dive into the history of the bible, I know books have been omitted, and some of those books contained ridiculous stuff. Some of the books left in the bible contain ridiculous stuff. I always assumed this was done by King James, and I was wrong. > > : and The Bible still doesn't come in close to reality. > > You mean it doesn't come close to your opinions about reality. yes > > : I find it humorous that if King James had decided to go a different > direction, > : you would be saying > : > : "Bryan Kimmes is as smart as a sponge because he doesn't believe in Zeus." > > 100% false. There is nothing in the Apocrypha about Zeus. I have never read 'Apocrypah', but I would guess it has a lot to do with the virgin mary? > > You haven't yet learned a painful lesson about RGP -- No matter what subject > you post on, there are people reading RGP who know more about the subject I can open up google and search just as fast as StillActsYoungToo, but I prefer just to post away. I guess if I am wrong about the history of the bible, I could be wrong about the book itself. Maybe a re-read is in order. > than you do. If you don't want to make a fool of yourself, make sure you > know what you are talking about before you post. Earlier in this thread you spoke of 'human frailty'. The biggest human frailty is the overwhelming concern everyone seems to have with what others "think" of them. I am not overly concerned about appearing foolish. (Big fat softball floating into Paul Popinjays wheelhouse there) Bryan   _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:59:00 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Bryan Kimmes" <bkimmes@702com.net > wrote in message news:1165486907$917733@recpoker.com... : : : On Dec 6 2006 8:04 AM, William Coleman wrote: : : > "Bryan Kimmes" wrote in message : > news:1165398710$917101@recpoker.com... : > : On Dec 5 2006 2:34 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: : > : : > : > On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Bryan Kimmes wrote: : > : > > : > : > > Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. : > : > > : > : > > I was duped. : > : > : > : > You were. Anybody who's read more than a handful of Paul's posts and : > : > has an I.Q. greater than that of a sponge can easily spot these things. : > : > Then again, given your ignorant Biblical rantings we might have to : > : > disqualify you on at least one of those criteria. : > : : > : Hey I caught on after a while. : > : : > : Run me into the ground all you want, your use of insults is oddly : > satisfying.... : > : : > : King James threw out all the books that were over-the-top ridiculous : > : > LOL. Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could you? Seriously, Bryan, : > your knowledge of the Bible cannot even charitably be described as : > superficial. The New Testament Canon was established over a thousand years : > before the King James translation. The Catholic Bible contained some : > intertestamental books, usually referred to as the Apocrypha, which aren't : > in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV omits those books. There were no books thrown : > out as over-the-top ridiculous. : : Thank you for the information. I may one day decide to dive into the history of : the bible, I know books have been omitted, and some of those books contained : ridiculous stuff. Some of the books left in the bible contain ridiculous stuff. : : I always assumed this was done by King James, and I was wrong. : : > : > : and The Bible still doesn't come in close to reality. : > : > You mean it doesn't come close to your opinions about reality. : : yes : : > : > : I find it humorous that if King James had decided to go a different : > direction, : > : you would be saying : > : : > : "Bryan Kimmes is as smart as a sponge because he doesn't believe in Zeus." : > : > 100% false. There is nothing in the Apocrypha about Zeus. : : I have never read 'Apocrypah', but I would guess it has a lot to do with the : virgin mary? No, the Apocryphal books have to do with the history of the Jews between about 400 BCE and the birth of Jesus. : > You haven't yet learned a painful lesson about RGP -- No matter what subject : > you post on, there are people reading RGP who know more about the subject : : I can open up google and search just as fast as StillActsYoungToo, but I prefer : just to post away. : : I guess if I am wrong about the history of the bible, I could be wrong about the : book itself. : : Maybe a re-read is in order. A simple reread will not do it. First of all, get a good modern translation. I prefer the New King James Version or the New Revised Standard Version. You are better off with a study Bible, which has lots of footnotes, cross references, and supplementary articles. My everyday Bible is "The New Open Bible", a NKJV translation, published by Nelson. Also good is "The New Oxford Annotated Bible", a NRSV translation which contains the Apocrypha. Then you need a good Bible commentary and a good Bible dictionary. Harpers and Oxford both publish excellent commentaries and dictionaries. Then you need to find someone who understands what the Bible actually says. The Bible says absolutely nothing about an immortal soul which goes to Heaven or Hell at the time of death. This is one of many pagan doctrines adopted by the Catholic Church and inherited by the Protestant Churches. The Bible is quite clear. When you die, you die. The dead know nothing. The dead are aware of nothing. I am not a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, but I believe it is the only major Christian Church which teaches what the Bible actually says on the state of the dead and many other topics. After studying the Bible for many years and finding that none of the Christian Churches taught what the Bible actually says, I stumbled onto the Seventh Day Adventist Church by watching 3ABN, Three Angels Broadcasting Network. 3ABN is run by Seventh Day Adventists, but the network is not funded or controlled by any church organization. 3ABN has local TV affiliates in many cities. In Las Vegas, it is broadcast channel 43. You can find out whether there is a broadcast affiliate in your city at -- http://www.3abn.org/tv_affiliates_uhf_vhf.cfm You can find out whether your local cable system carries 3ABN at -- http://www.3abn.org/tv_affiliates.cfm And you can watch 3ABN streaming online at -- http://www.3abn.org/tv_media.cfm I have to tell you that I was absolutely thrilled when I first started watching 3ABN and heard a Seventh Day Adventist preacher proclaim -- The Roman Catholic Church is the mother of whores, and her daughters, the Protestant Churches, are all whores. If you have the stomach for it, try attending your local Seventh Day Adventist Church. I think you will find that these people are not your usual sanctimonious, holier-than-thou assholes. I don't know if all Seventh Day Adventist Churches are run the same way, but at the Boulder City Church, which I attend, there is an adult Bible study before the worship service, and a Wednesday evening Bible study for n00bies. There is also a vegetarian potluck dinner after the worship service. When you start reading the Bible, don't start at Genesis and read through to Revelation. Start with King Solomon's books of wisdom -- Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Most atheists are astounded when they read these books. Then read the four gospels, concentrating on the actual words of Jesus. Before reading the Bible from cover to cover, I suggest you read some of Joseph Campbell's writings on mythology. Campbell explains that mythology is the natural medium for conveying religious truth. Viewing the Bible as a literal recounting of historical events, as the Christian fundamentalists do, is incredibly unsophisticated and naive. The Bible is a message from beyond time and space. This message explains how God has revealed himself to humanity. First to the Jews as Yahweh. Then to the whole world as Jesus Christ. The Bible is highly symbolic and allegorical, with many levels of meaning and interpretation, including occult meanings of which very few people are aware. I think the Bible, from Abraham onward, can reasonably be interpreted as historical narrative, but I don't get hung up on whether this narrative is 100% factually accurate. I place everything prior to Abraham, including Noah, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel, in the realm of mythology. In fact, the whole Bible is mythology, in the sense that the purpose is to convey religious truth, not to recount historical events. William Coleman (ramashiva)           Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:58:07 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 7, 4:21 am, Bryan Kimmes <bkim...@702com.net > wrote: > > I have never read 'Apocrypah', but I would guess it has a lot to do with the > virgin mary? Please...stop posting on anything even remotely related to this subject. If you're not already embarrased then I am for you.     Date: 05 Dec 20:28:22 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 9:49 AM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 4, 10:27 pm, "brewmaster" wrote: > > > > Since there is no god and no satan, it doesn't matter what he has as his > > avatar. Come on Paul, move beyond the religion crap, you're too smart for > > that. > > I continue to be greatly amused at how many of you are so easily duped > by Mr. Popinjay. Keep up the good work. Yeah, after reading his exchange with pokerchimp, it's a troll. I was duped. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:34:49 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 4, 9:37 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote: > > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that Igotskillz is a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. I had the Eternal Fajitas at Pablo's Tex-Mex the other night. Delicious and oh so filling.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:06:34 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist FellKnight wrote: > > Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM > waves through a vacuum. It does if they're radiated omnidirectionally (like radio and television broadcasts are) and not in a focused beam. > That being said, in our 100 years of EM waves > (only about 40 of which would be significant), the waves could only have > travelled 40-100 light years, which is a mere speck of dust in the galaxy, > which measure 200,000 light years across. Not to mention getting to the 100 billion other galaxies (that we know of).   Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:46:00 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Or, try this one: Let's say there are about 100 billion civilizations in the universe that are more advanced than us. That's about 1 per galaxy. Let's further suppose that all 100 billion of them are actively searching for intelligent life elsewhere and, by some unbelievable stroke of luck, they've all turned their radio receivers directly at us (actually, that's an over-simplification of where they'd need to point them...but you get the idea.) Not only that, but their receiver technology is so advanced that some of them actually have a chance of not only detecting the one or two radio-frequency photons at a time they're able to receive, but to also figure out that they're not due to natural radio noise. Cool! Oops...small problem. The absolute closest of these extra-galactic civilizations, if we're lucky, are in the Andromeda Galaxy...some 2 million light years distant. We'll likely be extinct long before they even hear about us. Damn, and we were so close.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:40:47 From: igotskillz Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Thanx, man On Dec 4, 10:37 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote: > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking Satan. > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he posts about > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no right to post > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only thing he > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And in my > opinion, that's not long enough. > > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this newsgroup. The > other being, of course,Igotskillz. The difference is, thatIgotskillzis a > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is going to fry > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > > -Paul Popinjay   Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:38:03 From: igotskillz Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Thanx Paul On Dec 5, 2:19 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote: > <tranger...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > > > Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as > > a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back > > as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war > > of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast > > who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > > purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked > > up to you tomorrow?I'll bet you're one of these intolerant European fucks. Because I have not > noticed you on this newsgroup before. Where do you get off? And look at > the foolishness you spew because everyone knows what the devil looks like, > you fool, with being red and having a couple horns and a tail, and has a > pitchfork with him a lot of times. You are an intolerant fool. Please, I > am considering killfiling you. > > > As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read > > John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance.Oh? Look who's talking, fuck face. I have never said that I was a > Christian. I said thatIgotskillzis a good Christian, and that Eleaticus > is an evil Satanist, but I have never stated my beliefs. Thankyou for > showing us all what a hypocrite you are in passing judgement on people you > don't know because of your closed-mindedness and intolerance. So typical of > you European Nazis. > > -Paul Popinjay   Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:12:32 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 5:49 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > Wow! What a jump it is from detecting a single photon to collecting a > bunch of them, parts of the bunch being sequential, with both the > semi-simultaneous and sequentials being calculable as patterned in some > cases/ > > ROFFLMFAO! No need to continue showing your ignorance. We're already well aware of it. What was it about detecting the occasional single photon (no matter how many of them you collect here and there over time) and trying to distinguish between it/them and background radio noise did you not comprehend? How much of a given signal from a broadcast of "Amos and Andy" do you think would reach a radio receiver 150 light years (or much, much more distant) away? Imagine the weak signal you get from a radio station 100 miles away. Now imagine that the transmitter is 8,816,972,536,800 times as distant as it was before. The signal strength is now only 1 / 77,739,004,714,685,427,354,240,000 what it was when you could barely receive it from 100 miles away. Now extend that to the distances the signal needs to travel in order to cover a significan portion of just *our* galaxy, let alone any of the over 100 billion other galaxies in the observable universe. Starting to get the picture?   Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:18:52 From: WuzYoungOnceToo2 Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 4:25 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com > wrote: > > The reference I was giving was from the latest revision of A Brief History > of Time by Stephen Hawking. He said (not an exact quote) Exactly what he said would be a lot more meaningful than what you seem to remember thinking he said. > that the human > race is now at the point where we are very close to being able to travel > longer distances in the universe Wow. Longer distances? That doesn't mean much. > perhaps even to other solar systems and > other galaxies. "perhaps even to other solar systems". That's not much of a basis on which to conclude that other civilizations in the universe who are slightly more advanced than us much not only be able to travel galactically significant interstellare distances, but also know where to find the neighbors. > He goes on to say that any "civilization" that may exist > elsewhere in the universe must either be a) more advanced than us, b) the > same as us, or c) behind us. If they are b or c, they cannot travel > across the universe either. If they are a then they only need to be a > little bit more advanced than us (based on where we are now) to be able to > travel here. Since nobody has yet traveled here, there must be no > civilizations in the universe more advanced than us. See above. Also, the lecture cited ("Life in the Universe") is chock-full of odd statements and non-sequiturs. For instance: "I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant." Based on....what? Also, for a cosmologist, I found the following quite odd: "This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up." Our sun is not predicted to "blow up" (it lacks the mass for that outcome). It is expected to expand, contract and then slowly burn out in a stellar "fizzle". That said, you seem to have missed part of his conclusion: "I prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked."   Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:37:36 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:34 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com > wrote: > > Oh, you think I made that up? I got that directly from Stephen Hawking, > thank you very much. I hate to break this to you, but that cartoon caricature of Hawking you saw on "The Simpsons" wasn't the real deal.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:14:28 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 2:37 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:34 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote: > > > > Oh, you think I made that up? I got that directly from Stephen Hawking, > > thank you very much. > > I hate to break this to you, but that cartoon caricature of Hawking you > saw on "The Simpsons" wasn't the real deal. Oh for pete's sake. No, I actually read. ----  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com   Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:35:28 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 4:11 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > The human retina can detect single photons and you think technology is stuck > to the point that we cannot be detected outside a radius of, say, 30 light > years? > > ROFFLMFAO! You should spend more time reading and less time assuming that "laughing" like the moron you are is going to fool someone into thinking you've actually refuted anything. Detecting a single photon and detecting a series of photons in a pattern recognizable as a signal are two entirely different things. The universe is positively awash with electromagnetic radiation. What the fuck do you think detecting a photon or two (or a hundred) of radio spectrum wavelength (or shifted into a higher or lower band due to relative motion) amongst the cornucopia of background radiation is going to tell this hypothetical somewhat-more-advanced-than-humanity civilization? You really haven't got the first clue what you're babbling about.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:49:34 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165358128.285144.133290@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 4:11 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > The human retina can detect single photons and you think technology is stuck > > to the point that we cannot be detected outside a radius of, say, 30 light > > years? > > > > ROFFLMFAO! > > You should spend more time reading and less time assuming that > "laughing" like the moron you are is going to fool someone into > thinking you've actually refuted anything. > > Detecting a single photon and detecting a series of photons in a > pattern recognizable as a signal are two entirely different things. > The universe is positively awash with electromagnetic radiation. What > the fuck do you think detecting a photon or two (or a hundred) of radio > spectrum wavelength (or shifted into a higher or lower band due to > relative motion) amongst the cornucopia of background radiation is > going to tell this hypothetical somewhat-more-advanced-than-humanity > civilization? > > You really haven't got the first clue what you're babbling about. Wow! What a jump it is from detecting a single photon to collecting a bunch of them, parts of the bunch being sequential, with both the semi-simultaneous and sequentials being calculable as patterned in some cases/ ROFFLMFAO! -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net >   Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:01:15 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to discuss > finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves for > such a century. It would be if you knew anything at all about physics. Google "inverse square of the distance" and let me know if you "stumble" across some realization.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:28:09 From: FellKnight Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 3:01 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to discuss > > finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves for > > such a century. > > It would be if you knew anything at all about physics. Google "inverse > square of the distance" and let me know if you "stumble" across some > realization. Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM waves through a vacuum. That being said, in our 100 years of EM waves (only about 40 of which would be significant), the waves could only have travelled 40-100 light years, which is a mere speck of dust in the galaxy, which measure 200,000 light years across. Fell -- Website: www.fellknight.com Email: fellknight at gmail dot com _____________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com       Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:09:07 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:pemh44xdau.ln2@recgroups.com... > > Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM > waves through a vacuum. That being said, in our 100 years of EM waves > (only about 40 of which would be significant), the waves could only have > travelled 40-100 light years, which is a mere speck of dust in the galaxy, > which measure 200,000 light years across. > ha! 200,000 lightyears? yeah, sure. bite ME!         Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:23:02 From: FellKnight Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 10:09 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:pemh44xdau.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > > Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM > > waves through a vacuum. That being said, in our 100 years of EM waves > > (only about 40 of which would be significant), the waves could only have > > travelled 40-100 light years, which is a mere speck of dust in the galaxy, > > which measure 200,000 light years across. > > > > > ha! 200,000 lightyears? yeah, sure. bite ME! My bad, only 80,000 to 100,000 light years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way Fell -- Website: www.fellknight.com Email: fellknight at gmail dot com --------  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com           Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:25:02 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:6c7j44xu71.ln2@recgroups.com... > > My bad, only 80,000 to 100,000 light years > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way > Frankly, I misread this last night. Sorry, but my thinking was, just how the fuck do THEY know. I can understand how they can use simple trigonometry to figure the distance of some nearby objects, but how the fuck do they know for sure that the Milky Way is 80,000 to 100,000 lightyears? I think it's all just theory. Nothing wrong with theory, but people, especially dolts like Brewmaster, who accept these theories like truth etched in granite, are just a little too fucking cocky if you ask me. Really, I have little respect for people who think they know it all. -Paul Popinjay             Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:37:08 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:25:02 GMT, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote: >"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:6c7j44xu71.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> My bad, only 80,000 to 100,000 light years >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way >> > >Frankly, I misread this last night. Sorry, but my thinking was, just how >the fuck do THEY know. I can understand how they can use simple >trigonometry to figure the distance of some nearby objects, but how the fuck >do they know for sure that the Milky Way is 80,000 to 100,000 lightyears? I >think it's all just theory. Nothing wrong with theory, but people, >especially dolts like Brewmaster, who accept these theories like truth >etched in granite, are just a little too fucking cocky if you ask me. >Really, I have little respect for people who think they know it all. > >-Paul Popinjay > Yeah. I know what you mean.             Date: 07 Dec 10:28:15 From: Bryan Kimmes Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 6 2006 1:25 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote: > "FellKnight" wrote in message > news:6c7j44xu71.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > My bad, only 80,000 to 100,000 light years > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way > > > > Frankly, I misread this last night. Sorry, but my thinking was, just how > the fuck do THEY know. I can understand how they can use simple > trigonometry to figure the distance of some nearby objects, but how the fuck > do they know for sure that the Milky Way is 80,000 to 100,000 lightyears? I > think it's all just theory. Nothing wrong with theory, but people, > especially dolts like Brewmaster, who accept these theories like truth > etched in granite, are just a little too fucking cocky if you ask me. > Really, I have little respect for people who think they know it all. > > -Paul Popinjay You couldn't be more correct Paul. The Earth is flat. The Earth is the center of the universe. There is no water on any other planets. Bryan _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:23:02 From: William Coleman Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:pemh44xdau.ln2@recgroups.com... : On Dec 5 2006 3:01 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: : : > On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: : > > : > > Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to discuss : > > finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves for : > > such a century. : > : > It would be if you knew anything at all about physics. Google "inverse : > square of the distance" and let me know if you "stumble" across some : > realization. : : Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM : waves through a vacuum. It certainly does if the radiation energy is equal in all directions. The surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of the radius. At twice the distance, the same amount of radiant energy is spread over four times the surface area. Assume the radiation is somewhat focussed -- think of a slowly expanding circular cone. At twice the distance, the circular base of the cone will have twice the radius. Thus the same amount of radiant energy will be spread over four times the area, since the area of a circle is proportional to the square of the radius. Only a perfectly focussed laser beam would be exempt from the inverse square law. William Coleman (ramashiva)         Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:07:41 From: FellKnight Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 8:23 PM, William Coleman wrote: > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:pemh44xdau.ln2@recgroups.com... > : On Dec 5 2006 3:01 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > : > : > On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > : > > > : > > Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to > discuss > : > > finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves > for > : > > such a century. > : > > : > It would be if you knew anything at all about physics. Google "inverse > : > square of the distance" and let me know if you "stumble" across some > : > realization. > : > : Inverse square of the distance does not have to do with radio and other EM > : waves through a vacuum. > > It certainly does if the radiation energy is equal in all directions. The > surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of the radius. At > twice the distance, the same amount of radiant energy is spread over four > times the surface area. > > Assume the radiation is somewhat focussed -- think of a slowly expanding > circular cone. At twice the distance, the circular base of the cone will > have twice the radius. Thus the same amount of radiant energy will be > spread over four times the area, since the area of a circle is proportional > to the square of the radius. > > Only a perfectly focussed laser beam would be exempt from the inverse square > law. > > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) Good point, my error (I was imagining a directed beam) Fell -- Website: www.fellknight.com Email: fellknight at gmail dot com _____________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com     Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:11:08 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165353614.122497.122030@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Well, 'stumbling' would hardly be an appropriate word with which to discuss > > finding a 'civilization' that has been emitting electromagnetic waves for > > such a century. > > It would be if you knew anything at all about physics. Google "inverse > square of the distance" and let me know if you "stumble" across some > realization. The human retina can detect single photons and you think technology is stuck to the point that we cannot be detected outside a radius of, say, 30 light years? ROFFLMFAO! -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net >   Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:58:14 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist I was wondering how long it would take you to mentally implode and resort to a string of "nuh-uh"s and "you're a big doody head"s. Not that long, really. On Dec 5, 3:49 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2:57 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Where did I say anyone engaging in luxury was not a real Christian? > > > "I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 > > on > > a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are > > making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending > > > the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was > > advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate."Ok, where did I say "REAL christians"? Arrogant prick, when you're > wrong, just admit it. > > > Do you need me to explain what the word "Christian" actually means? > > > > Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time. > > > Then it's a good thing I'm not engaging in them.Yes you are. > > > > > > Yeah, honesty is a real cop-out. > > > No, but making a claim using a set of terms and then dodging a > > challenge to define those terms is. > > > > Maybe you don't understand what the term "cop-out" means? > > > Clearly I'm the only one of us that does. > > > > When did you explicitely state you arent Christian? > > > Having to go back and repeat everything for you is getting tiresome.Maybe you need an afternoon nap. I know elderly folks need a nap or > they get cranky. > > > > > > > Are you that lazy, or is your memory just that bad? Anyway, here it > > is: > > > "Actually, that whole "love they neighbor as thyself" thing was quite a > > > novel religious concept at the time. I'm not even a Christian and I > > can't help but shake my head at how clueless some religion critics > > are." > > > > I guess the fact that you're from North Texas, and arrogant lead me to believe you were > > > Christian. My apologies. > > > Perhaps you ought to spend less time assuming and more time gathering > > facts. It wouldn't be so bad were it not for your now clearly > > hypocritical statement to Paul: > > > "You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the > > archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not > > that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming > > your arguments as you do researching your opinions." > > > Here you chastise someone for not searching the archives, while you're > > too lazy to even peruse the same thread you're in now. > > > > The position I gave is one I hear very regularly from Christians. > > > 1) You haven't heard it from me, and you were responding TO me. > > > 2) I'm not a Christian. > > > Ergo, your statement is a strawman.And it was a question I was asking, not a statement I was making. > Maybe you should learn the difference between questions and statements. > > Wuz, you seem defensive and angry. Perhaps prescription meds would > help? I, however, will not be responding to your posts anymore, as it > is obvious you have little interest in honest debate.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -     Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:09:00 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165355894.684842.320990@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I was wondering how long it would take you to mentally implode and > resort to a string of "nuh-uh"s and "you're a big doody head"s. Not > that long, really. Well, don't BE such a doody head. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net   Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:49:50 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:57 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Where did I say anyone engaging in luxury was not a real Christian? > > "I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 > on > a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are > making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending > > the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was > advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate." Ok, where did I say "REAL christians"? Arrogant prick, when you're wrong, just admit it. > Do you need me to explain what the word "Christian" actually means? > > > Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time. > > Then it's a good thing I'm not engaging in them. Yes you are. > > > Yeah, honesty is a real cop-out. > > No, but making a claim using a set of terms and then dodging a > challenge to define those terms is. > > > Maybe you don't understand what the term "cop-out" means? > > Clearly I'm the only one of us that does. > > > When did you explicitely state you arent Christian? > > Having to go back and repeat everything for you is getting tiresome. Maybe you need an afternoon nap. I know elderly folks need a nap or they get cranky. > Are you that lazy, or is your memory just that bad? Anyway, here it > is: > > "Actually, that whole "love they neighbor as thyself" thing was quite a > > novel religious concept at the time. I'm not even a Christian and I > can't help but shake my head at how clueless some religion critics > are." > > > I guess the fact that you're from North Texas, and arrogant lead me to believe you were > > Christian. My apologies. > > Perhaps you ought to spend less time assuming and more time gathering > facts. It wouldn't be so bad were it not for your now clearly > hypocritical statement to Paul: > > "You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the > archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not > that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming > your arguments as you do researching your opinions." > > Here you chastise someone for not searching the archives, while you're > too lazy to even peruse the same thread you're in now. > > > The position I gave is one I hear very regularly from Christians. > > 1) You haven't heard it from me, and you were responding TO me. > > 2) I'm not a Christian. > > Ergo, your statement is a strawman. And it was a question I was asking, not a statement I was making. Maybe you should learn the difference between questions and statements. Wuz, you seem defensive and angry. Perhaps prescription meds would help? I, however, will not be responding to your posts anymore, as it is obvious you have little interest in honest debate.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:28:45 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 3:08 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > You really get stupid in a heated argument, don't you? Whereas you simply start out that way. > We are short only of the long term life support necessary - and/or the > intent - to make interstellar trips. Context my boy, context. Try interpreting the claim about the imminence of human intersteller travel in the context in which it was made. Namely, that any race capable of intersteller travel would have made contact with us by now. The type of intersteller travel you're referring to (what we'd be capable of even with advanced life-support/suspension systems of the sort you suggest) would still be incredibly limited in terms of potential for travel distance, and would take amounts of time you cannot even begin to fathom. And even then...how would this slightly-more-advanced-than-humanity race know where to find us? Carry out the previously suggested "inverse square of the distance" exercise before attempting to answer.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:25:44 From: brewmaster Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5 2006 1:28 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 3:08 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > You really get stupid in a heated argument, don't you? > > Whereas you simply start out that way. > > > We are short only of the long term life support necessary - and/or the > > intent - to make interstellar trips. > > Context my boy, context. Try interpreting the claim about the > imminence of human intersteller travel in the context in which it was > made. Namely, that any race capable of intersteller travel would have > made contact with us by now. The type of intersteller travel you're > referring to (what we'd be capable of even with advanced > life-support/suspension systems of the sort you suggest) would still be > incredibly limited in terms of potential for travel distance, and would > take amounts of time you cannot even begin to fathom. And even > then...how would this slightly-more-advanced-than-humanity race know > where to find us? Carry out the previously suggested "inverse square > of the distance" exercise before attempting to answer. The reference I was giving was from the latest revision of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He said (not an exact quote) that the human race is now at the point where we are very close to being able to travel longer distances in the universe, perhaps even to other solar systems and other galaxies. He goes on to say that any "civilization" that may exist elsewhere in the universe must either be a) more advanced than us, b) the same as us, or c) behind us. If they are b or c, they cannot travel across the universe either. If they are a then they only need to be a little bit more advanced than us (based on where we are now) to be able to travel here. Since nobody has yet traveled here, there must be no civilizations in the universe more advanced than us. http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html And I didn't make that up, contrary to WuzYoung's assertion. _____________________________________________________________________  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com   Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:20:49 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist William Coleman wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165342413.799245.115880@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > : > : William Coleman wrote: > : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > : > news:1165337719.379016.299280@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > : > : > : > : William Coleman wrote: > : > : > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > : > : > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > : > : > : > : > : > : Paul Popinjay wrote: > : > : > : > I just saw Eleaticus' avatar. I kid you not, it's fucking > Satan. > : > : > : > Is that a surprise? Eleaticus is a fucking Satanist. Today he > : > posts > : > : > about > : > : > : > public education and sports betting or some shit. He has no > right > : > to > : > : > post > : > : > : > about public education or any topic for that matter. The only > thing > : > he > : > : > : > should post about is that he's going to burn for eternity. And > in > : > my > : > : > : > opinion, that's not long enough. > : > : > : > > : > : > : > Eleaticus is easily in the top two biggest weirdos on this > : > newsgroup. > : > : > The > : > : > : > other being, of course, Igotskillz. The difference is, that > : > Igotskillz > : > : > is a > : > : > : > good Christian and is going to Heaven, whereas Eleaticus is > going to > : > fry > : > : > : > like eternal fajitas on a skillet. > : > : > : > > : > : > : > -Paul Popinjay > : > : > : > : > : > : Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > : > : > : > : > : > : Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come > back as > : > : > : a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come > back > : > : > > : > : > What is this about the Devil coming back? Where did he go? > : > : > : > : I dunno. Do you know the Devil? > : > > : > Yes. > : > > : > : Have you seen him? > : > > : > Yes. > : > > : > : What was he wearing? > : > > : > A Bush-Cheney lapel pin. > : > : Heh. > : > : > : > : as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people > into > : > war > : > : > : of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary > : > beast > : > : > : who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > : > : > : purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he > : > walked > : > : > : up to you tomorrow? > : > : > : > : > : > : As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? > Read > : > : > : John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > : > : > > : > : > Let me guess. You belong to one of those "feel good" megachurches > which > : > : > teach that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. > : > : > > : > : > > : > : > William Coleman (ramashiva) > : > : > : > : Nope, I'm not Christian. I think the megachurches that spend tens of > : > : millions of dollars to build are akin to the moneychangers in the > : > : temple. If Jesus is the son of God, and he comes back, the majority > of > : > : "Christians" who go to church every Sunday, and spend the other six > : > : days of the week preying on the weak and acting self-righteous will > get > : > : their due. > : > > : > Everyone will get their due. > : > > : > : How do you think rich Christians justify their behavior? > : > > : > Depends on which rich Christians you are talking about. If you are > talking > : > about "Christian fundamentalists", I have no idea how they can justify > their > : > behavior. > : > : I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of > : ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six > : figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of > : coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have > : all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who > : disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be > : Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous > : expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. > > Agreed. > > : > : According to > : > : Matthew, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle > : > : than for a rich man to enter the kindgom of heaven. Do you think the > : > : majority of Christians in America are rich or poor in comparison to > the > : > : people of other countries? > : > > : > Rich. > : > : Then do you believe the majority of Christians in the US are going to > : heaven? > > Nope. I think very few are. And I probably won't either. That's why I > have internalized the prayer -- > > "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on my soul." > > I have repeated this prayer so much that it is constantly running in the > back of my mind. I recommend this as a Christian meditation mantra. > > "Lord Jesus Christ" on inhalation. > > "Have mercy on my soul" on exhalation. > > > William Coleman (ramashiva) I have a similar mediation mantra. It's "Lord God the Almighty, Forgive america, and the ignorant voters."   Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:17:58 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:57 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Where did I say anyone engaging in luxury was not a real Christian? "I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 on a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate." Do you need me to explain what the word "Christian" actually means? > Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time. Then it's a good thing I'm not engaging in them. > Yeah, honesty is a real cop-out. No, but making a claim using a set of terms and then dodging a challenge to define those terms is. > Maybe you don't understand what the term "cop-out" means? Clearly I'm the only one of us that does. > When did you explicitely state you arent Christian? Having to go back and repeat everything for you is getting tiresome. Are you that lazy, or is your memory just that bad? Anyway, here it is: "Actually, that whole "love they neighbor as thyself" thing was quite a novel religious concept at the time. I'm not even a Christian and I can't help but shake my head at how clueless some religion critics are." > I guess the fact that you're from North Texas, and arrogant lead me to believe you were > Christian. My apologies. Perhaps you ought to spend less time assuming and more time gathering facts. It wouldn't be so bad were it not for your now clearly hypocritical statement to Paul: "You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming your arguments as you do researching your opinions." Here you chastise someone for not searching the archives, while you're too lazy to even peruse the same thread you're in now. > The position I gave is one I hear very regularly from Christians. 1) You haven't heard it from me, and you were responding TO me. 2) I'm not a Christian. Ergo, your statement is a strawman.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:57:56 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:35 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Yes. While it isnt an easy question, I do think it's something that > > should be asked. And I don't have all the answers, however, unlike > > many religious extremists, I don't claim to. So, what's your point? > > My point is that you claimed that luxury itself was a problem, and that > anyone indulging in it was not a real Christian. Where did I say anyone engaging in luxury was not a real Christian? Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time. > I asked you to define > what you meant by "luxury" in that context. Without some clear, > unamibuous meaning behind them your comments are pointless. Your "I > don't have all the answers, unlike may religious extremists" is a > blatant diversionary cop-out. Yeah, honesty is a real cop-out. Maybe you don't understand what the term "cop-out" means? > > I don't know, you tell me. > > I have to tell you what you think? > > > Is this what you believe, as a Christian? > > What makes you think I'm a Christian? The fact that I explicitely said > that I'm not? When did you explicitely state you arent Christian? I guess the fact that you're from North Texas, and arrogant lead me to believe you were Christian. My apologies. > > Or do you believe that luxury is not evil, God showed fortune upon you, > > therefore your money is yours to do what you will with it? > > If you can't substantiate (or even clarify) your position then just say > so. Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time. Strawmen? The position I gave is one I hear very regularly from Christians.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:47:53 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:35 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes. While it isnt an easy question, I do think it's something that > should be asked. And I don't have all the answers, however, unlike > many religious extremists, I don't claim to. So, what's your point? My point is that you claimed that luxury itself was a problem, and that anyone indulging in it was not a real Christian. I asked you to define what you meant by "luxury" in that context. Without some clear, unamibuous meaning behind them your comments are pointless. Your "I don't have all the answers, unlike may religious extremists" is a blatant diversionary cop-out. > I don't know, you tell me. I have to tell you what you think? > Is this what you believe, as a Christian? What makes you think I'm a Christian? The fact that I explicitely said that I'm not? > Or do you believe that luxury is not evil, God showed fortune upon you, > therefore your money is yours to do what you will with it? If you can't substantiate (or even clarify) your position then just say so. Strawmen are a cowardly waste of everyone's time.   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:36:13 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 2:30 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE. Kanye....is that you? Still torqued about that MTV Video Award thing?   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:35:59 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist WuzYoungOnceToo wrote: > On Dec 5, 1:55 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 on > > a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are > > making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending > > the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was > > advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate. > > Define "luxury" (beyond the simple examples given). Are you referring > to an impossible-to-agree-upon standard like "conspicuous consumption"? Yes. While it isnt an easy question, I do think it's something that should be asked. And I don't have all the answers, however, unlike many religious extremists, I don't claim to. So, what's your point? > Or something more objective like, "anything beyond the bare > necessities of life" (ie., food, water, shelter and maybe basic medical > care)? If the latter, where do you draw the line with the quality of > each necessity? Is a salad with ranch dressing a luxury? How about > shelter more luxurious than a cave? We can survive with pain. Is > medical attention aimed solely at relieving pain a luxury that one > should avoid in order to be a true Christian? I don't know, you tell me. Is this what you believe, as a Christian? Or do you believe that luxury is not evil, God showed fortune upon you, therefore your money is yours to do what you will with it?   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:30:11 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165347836.382500.281460@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the > > archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not > > that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming > > your arguments as you do researching your opinions. And you > > discriminate against a group of people because of their citizenship? > > Must have voted for Bush. > > > > > So then what are you saying? That just because I am Black that I cannot > vote for Bush? I resent your implications and trying to stereotype me as a > person who must vote democrat because of my color. When will you racist > fucks begin to look at people for what they are inside? You disgust me, and > I am considering killfiling you. > > -Paul Leroy Popinjay Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE. I disgust you? Oh NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO. Did you hear that? Its the sound of my heart breaking. My life will not be complete until I make amends.     Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:36:55 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165350610.121104.322860@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE. I > disgust you? Oh NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO. Did you hear that? Its > the sound of my heart breaking. My life will not be complete until I > make amends. > Well you SHOULD try to make amends, mutherfucker. I am deeply offended by your racist tones. Especially in light of the recent Kramer debacle, you'd think people would try to be a little more considerate. Listen, trangers16. I would appreciate it if you just did not ever read any of my posts on this newsgroup again. We don't have to get into a nasty exchange of words, you racist prick. Just don't ever read my posts again and don't ever comment in any of my threads. Keep your racist views to yourself. You hypocrite. -Paul Leroy Popinjay       Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:18:42 From: Peg Smith Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote: >Listen, trangers16. >I would appreciate it if you just did not ever read any of my posts on this >newsgroup again. We don't have to get into a nasty exchange of words, you >racist prick. Just don't ever read my posts again and don't ever comment in >any of my threads. Keep your racist views to yourself. You hypocrite. Or what? You'll wish that he's a fajita in his next life? Peg   Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:05:16 From: WuzYoungOnceToo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On Dec 5, 1:55 pm, tranger...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 on > a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are > making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending > the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was > advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate. Define "luxury" (beyond the simple examples given). Are you referring to an impossible-to-agree-upon standard like "conspicuous consumption"? Or something more objective like, "anything beyond the bare necessities of life" (ie., food, water, shelter and maybe basic medical care)? If the latter, where do you draw the line with the quality of each necessity? Is a salad with ranch dressing a luxury? How about shelter more luxurious than a cave? We can survive with pain. Is medical attention aimed solely at relieving pain a luxury that one should avoid in order to be a true Christian?   Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:55:30 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > On 5 Dec 2006 10:13:33 -0800, trangers16@hotmail.com wrote: > > >I mean Christians who believe in following Jesus and the message of > >ministering to the poor, yet have 7 figure bank accounts, or hell, six > >figure bank accounts. Seems a little misguided to spend $5 on a cup of > >coffee, when so many people live on less than $5 a day. I don't have > >all the answers though, and I don't preach (too much) at people who > >disagree with my views. I just think its very difficult to claim to be > >Christian, driving around in an H3 and spending money on frivolous > >expenses, while so many want for clean water and food. > > Spending $5 on a cup of coffee is reasonable, but should be preferred > only when the people actually growing the coffee are compensated > fairly. I'm not referring here to the overpriced shit at Starbucks, which > is inferior coffee marked up for obscene profits to be marketed to > morons, but Fair Trade coffees and teas. These are generally more > expensive than their mass-produced counterparts, but are also > generally of higher quality. > > I don't see any reason luxury in itself should be decried. I'm not > going to feel a bit guilty for enjoying filet mignon or lobster, or > a $5 cup of coffee (or a $10 cup of coffee for that matter). But I do like to > direct my money in ways that favor fairness, whenever there is such an > alternative. I agree with your bit about the fair trade coffee. I thought I had put "Starbucks coffee" in the original, oops. I think luxury itself is a problem however. When we spend, say $250 on a fancy dinner for an anniversary, or $1,000 on a necklace, we are making a decision to spend the money on ourselves, rather than spending the money helping out our fellow man. It seems that Jesus was advocating giving completely of oneself to help the less fortunate. Having said that, I'm not Christian, not so much because I disagree with the morals and ethics of the faith, but I don't think Jesus is the son of God. Kinda makes it hard to worship him...   Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:43:56 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165336109.002021.221800@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Satan? How do you know what Satan looks like? > > > > Read "The Devil and Dr. Church". The devil isnt going to come back as > > a hairy beast with four eyes breathing fire. The Devil will come back > > as a charismatic leader who will use religion to lead a people into war > > of mutual destruction. The popular image of the devil as a scary beast > > who will be easily recognizable is fiction, and serves the Devil's > > purposes well. Do you think you would recognize the devil if he walked > > up to you tomorrow? > > > > I'll bet you're one of these intolerant European fucks. Because I have not > noticed you on this newsgroup before. Breathe a little Paulie boy. I would hate to be responsible for an old man having a heart attack, or falling down and breaking a hip in a fit of rage. >Where do you get off? And look at > the foolishness you spew because everyone knows what the devil looks like, > you fool, with being red and having a couple horns and a tail, and has a > pitchfork with him a lot of times. You are an intolerant fool. Please, I > am considering killfiling you. Don't just consider, do it. Please. > > As a Christian, should you be judging others for their beliefs? Read > > John 8: 4-7 and learn about tolerance. > > > > Oh? Look who's talking, fuck face. I have never said that I was a > Christian. I said that Igotskillz is a good Christian, and that Eleaticus > is an evil Satanist, but I have never stated my beliefs. Thankyou for > showing us all what a hypocrite you are in passing judgement on people you > don't know because of your closed-mindedness and intolerance. So typical of > you European Nazis. You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming your arguments as you do researching your opinions. And you discriminate against a group of people because of their citizenship? Must have voted for Bush. > -Paul Popinjay     Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:57:14 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165347836.382500.281460@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > > You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the > archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not > that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming > your arguments as you do researching your opinions. And you > discriminate against a group of people because of their citizenship? > Must have voted for Bush. > So then what are you saying? That just because I am Black that I cannot vote for Bush? I resent your implications and trying to stereotype me as a person who must vote democrat because of my color. When will you racist fucks begin to look at people for what they are inside? You disgust me, and I am considering killfiling you. -Paul Leroy Popinjay       Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:47:05 From: eleaticus Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:uakdh.47450$Fg.2804@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165347836.382500.281460@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > You think I'm from Europe? Try again. If you knew how to search the > > archives, I've commented in previous threads about my location. Not > > that you probably care, it seems like you spend as little time forming > > your arguments as you do researching your opinions. And you > > discriminate against a group of people because of their citizenship? > > Must have voted for Bush. > > > > > So then what are you saying? That just because I am Black that I cannot > vote for Bush? I resent your implications and trying to stereotype me as a > person who must vote democrat because of my color. When will you racist > fucks begin to look at people for what they are inside? You disgust me, and > I am considering killfiling you. ROFFLMFAO! The 'black' is probably some dark shade of brown you see in your mirror, most densely around your neck, what with your shoulders being too wide to ... you know. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net   Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:33:37 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165350610.121104.322860@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE. I > > disgust you? Oh NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO. Did you hear that? Its > > the sound of my heart breaking. My life will not be complete until I > > make amends. > > > > Well you SHOULD try to make amends, mutherfucker. I am deeply offended by > your racist tones. Especially in light of the recent Kramer debacle, you'd > think people would try to be a little more considerate. Listen, trangers16. > I would appreciate it if you just did not ever read any of my posts on this > newsgroup again. We don't have to get into a nasty exchange of words, you > racist prick. Just don't ever read my posts again and don't ever comment in > any of my threads. Keep your racist views to yourself. You hypocrite. > > -Paul Leroy Popinjay Oh, I'm going to read your posts AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Just try to stop me. And I am racist, but not against black people, against gingers. Damn those gingers and their fiery dispositions...     Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:46:45 From: Paul Popinjay Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist <trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1165422817.472757.195890@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Oh, I'm going to read your posts AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT > IT. Just try to stop me. > Oh? You think I won't do anything if you defy my demands and instead continue to read my posts anyway? Just keep pushing me, trangers16, and I'll report you. >And I am racist, but not against black > people, against gingers. Damn those gingers and their fiery > dispositions... > I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what a 'ginger' is. But let me ask you a question. Have you ever eaten Ginger raw?   Date: 06 Dec 2006 11:55:36 From: Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist Paul Popinjay wrote: > <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165422817.472757.195890@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Oh, I'm going to read your posts AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT > > IT. Just try to stop me. > > > > Oh? You think I won't do anything if you defy my demands and instead > continue to read my posts anyway? Just keep pushing me, trangers16, and > I'll report you. Report ME?!?!?! I'll report YOU! Keep it up...you'll see.... > >And I am racist, but not against black > > people, against gingers. Damn those gingers and their fiery > > dispositions... > > > > I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what a 'ginger' > is. But let me ask you a question. Have you ever eaten Ginger raw? I'm more of a Mary Ann guy myself. But take 20 years off Mrs. Howell...     Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:35:56 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist On 6 Dec 2006 11:55:36 -0800, trangers16@hotmail.com wrote: > >Paul Popinjay wrote: >> <trangers16@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1165422817.472757.195890@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > >> > Oh, I'm going to read your posts AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT >> > IT. Just try to stop me. >> > >> >> Oh? You think I won't do anything if you defy my demands and instead >> continue to read my posts anyway? Just keep pushing me, trangers16, and >> I'll report you. > >Report ME?!?!?! I'll report YOU! Keep it up...you'll see.... > >> >And I am racist, but not against black >> > people, against gingers. Damn those gingers and their fiery >> > dispositions... >> > >> >> I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what a 'ginger' >> is. But let me ask you a question. Have you ever eaten Ginger raw? > >I'm more of a Mary Ann guy myself. But take 20 years off Mrs. Howell... I am proud to report that I could never watch more than about 10 minutes of Gilligan's Island without walking away grumbling about what a damn stupid waste of valuable Teevee time it was. But then, I always watched the Beverly Hillbillies and thought it was funnier than Hell. Put Ginger and Mary Ann together and they still wouldn't make one Ellie May Clampett. Go figger, eh?   Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:50:14 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Eleaticus the Satanist eleaticus wrote: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message > news:mu9f44xlvp.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Dec 4 2006 8:32 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > > > > He's ok in my book. One of the more unique posters with a variety of > > > interests and thoughts. > > > he prefers his name to be spelled eleaticus > > > > > > > What do you mean prefers? Ele...and ele... are completely different. > > And the way I spell is ... what? <holds nose > Oh, you said "spell." </> It isn't a spelling issue; it's a capitalization issue. You want it eleaticus, you got it. Except, of course when it is the first word in a sentence. You only get so much slack, you know. Eleaticus is picky about how one capitalizes eleaticus. Will in New Haven -- > > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net