A problem in Catholisism today is people will to only take in the teachings of the new Teastament. The words of Jehovah are rarely recited,read or even remembered. I agree that Jesus is inspiring in his bland peacefulness but we must also know how to act in times of great anger and the old Testament shines the way!!! I have gathered a few forgotten lessons that you can read in your bible i hope you enjoy.

1. GOD CREATES EVIL -I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things ---Isaiah 45:7 -The lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil---Proverbs 16:4

2. GOD WILL PUNISH CHILDREN FOR THEIR PARENTS SINS -...for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the intiquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me...---Exodus 20:5 -I will sell yor sons and your daughters into the hands of the sons of Judah---Joel 3:8

3. GOD ADVOCATES (even causes)CANNIBALISM -And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.---Leviticus 29 - And i will do thee that which I have not done, and whereunto i will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations. Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and i will execute judgements in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will i scatter into the winds.---Ezekiel 5:8-10

and saving the best till last... 4.GOD ADVOCATES RAPE -When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest amoung the captives a buetiful woman, and hast a desire unto her... thou shalt go in unto her...---Dueteronomy 21:10-11,13

Please read these up yourself, you'll find I'm not taking anything out of context. I hope you all find this enlightening.

GOD BE WITH YOU

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 11, 2002

Answers

Bob Hennessy?

Bob,

You might want to enroll in some introductory religion or philosophy class. You don't seem to have a very deep knowledge of simply concepts like the nature of good and evil, etc.

I'll answer one of your questions...

You write:

"1. GOD CREATES EVIL -I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things ---Isaiah 45:7 -The lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil---Proverbs 16:4"

From the US Catholic Bishop's website:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Note: Create woe: God permits evil for the sake of a greater good.

Regarding Proverbs 16:4, God simply creates all. Those "wicked" are not made evil by God. If Proverbs wasn't explicit as it was, the alternative would appear to some that another god created the wicked. Bob, one who believes this would be espousing polytheism.

Do you believe that another god (or gods) created the wicked?

Bob, here are some scriptures to think about:

Romans 16:17 - "I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them."

Titus 3:9-11 - "But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Bob writes:

"A problem in Catholisism today is people will to only take in the teachings of the new Teastament."

Maybe you are right, Bob. Maybe we should pay more attention to the Old Testament:

Proverbs 9:7-12 - "He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. For by me your days will be multiplied, and years will be added to your life. If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; if you scoff, you alone will bear it."

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 11, 2002.

Bob,

If you choose to use a fake email address, please turn off the "Notify Me of Responses" option. Otherwise, the real "bob@hotmail.com" will receive unwanted emails.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 11, 2002.

Mateo:

Great response! It's so good to have you back on the forum. We MISSED you!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 11, 2002.

Mateo, Well that was mildly patronising. I'm not asking you anything 'Mateo' simply reminding. God does EVERYTHING for the greater good and I am just reminding people of some of things he does. Surely you have read the book of Job; thats particularly amusing. Heres another little biblical extract you can add to my 'section 4': -Thus saith the LORD, behold, I will rise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun ---II Samuel 12:11-12

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 11, 2002.

As for calling me a 'polytheist', Henotheist would be more accurate. It seems the authors of the Old Testament recognise more than one god.

In Exodus 15:11 the writer declares: "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, amoung the gods?"

Perhaps God simply slaughtered his rivals; let us look to Isaiah 26:13-14 O LORD our God, other lords besides thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live: they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

Just think we would never know about all these dead Gods if it weren't for the filthy prods translating it for us.

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 12, 2002.

Bob (Hennessy),

You write:

"As for calling me a 'polytheist', Henotheist would be more accurate."

Well, you never stated that you believed in any god. Further, I never called you a polytheist. You may want to re-read my post to you and confirm this. Reading comprehension...reading comprehension...

You write:

"I'm not asking you anything 'Mateo' simply reminding."

Bob, you're attempting to mock the Bible. Because you are ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian theology, I recommended that you take a class. If you are "reminding" us, then I am simply "reminding" you of your errors.

You write:

"...the book of Job; thats particularly amusing. Heres [Here's] another little biblical extract..."

Well, that was mildly patronizing toward the Word of God.

You write:

"It seems the authors of the Old Testament recognise more than one god."

At the time, many towns created their own local gods out of embellished stories of their kings/heroes/founders. Even today, many Christians (including me) refer to gods of money, lust, and pride. I would hardly consider that a proof that we believe in multiple gods.

You quote:

Isaiah 26:13-14 - "O LORD our God, other lords besides thee have ruled over us, but thy name alone we acknowledge. They are dead, they will not live; they are shades, they will not arise; to that end thou hast visited them with destruction and wiped out all remembrance of them."

Isaiah recounts a lot regarding neighboring peoples (Babylonians, Egyptians) who ruled over Israel. These peoples had their gods; but their gods were false gods. Nonetheless, they "ruled" over God's people. Isaiah is explicit that these gods never existed:

Isaiah 43:10-13 - "You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none. It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me. It is I who foretold, I who saved; I made it known, not any strange god among you; You are my witnesses, says the LORD. I am God, yes, from eternity I am He; There is none who can deliver from my hand: who can countermand what I do?"

Here in the same book of the Old Testament, God proclaims to Isaiah that there are no other gods (before or after Him). Maybe you only read Isaiah up to chapter 26? Anyway, this is why I recommend that you enroll in an introductory religion class. If you are truly interested in the Bible (and are willing to drop the "know-it-all" act), you could learn a lot by attending a class.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 12, 2002.

Bob,

You've made a couple errors that I would like to humbly point out.

"It seems the authors of the Old Testament recognise more than one god. In Exodus 15:11 the writer declares: "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, amoung the gods?""

In this context the writer is declaring that God is above all other man-made gods. If you read the entire book of Exodus, and further for better comprehension, you will note that the Israelites keep creating gods of gold. They are not gods like God Himslef, but rather idols or statues for idolatry. The Israelites had to have something tangible that they could SEE. But, "blessed are they who do not see, but believe." The line is better understood as: "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the [created items]?" Of course - how could one who is created, ever match the Creator?!

Perhaps God simply slaughtered his rivals; let us look to Isaiah 26:13-14 O LORD our God, other lords besides thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live: they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

Again the author eludes to earthly lords or kings. Throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Nubers... the OT, you will see that Israel continues to shame God by falling and worshiping false, man made idols - and they themselvs prefer earthly lords. They deny God, and God respects that and leaves - and without God Israel falls to many larger and stronger nations (like the Philistines). But with God (when Israel crys out - quite often if you read the Bible), the Lord of all, their strength is unmatched despite their size!

"Just think we would never know about all these dead Gods if it weren't for the filthy prods translating it for us."

They were gods (with a lower case 'g' indicating idols or objects - usually of gold or value), and we do know them (hint: $$$$$$$$$$).

Hope this helps Bob. It is actually good that you are posting here, because it helps to clarify certain passages in the Bible. It will do much good if people read these responses.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.

1 Cor. 8:

"Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 3 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist."

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.

If I'm not mistaken the word "god" lower case g, in the Hebrew, can also refer to angelic beings.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 12, 2002.

Thanks, Gail. That is good to know. Since angels are creations of God - it goes without saying that worship of angels is still an abomination befor God.

- I learn something every day! Especially here on the forum.

Thanks again.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.

Okay guys I'll let the multiple Gods thing slip: my bad. However your silence on the rest of the issues I've raised speaks volumes and so does your growing agitation 'Mateo'. I didn't realise a man of God could get so childishly personal. I don't want to cause any 'crusades' on un-believers or anything. How about we have a look at some of your errors now 'Mateo' and then at the bibles. Mateo you write: "Bob, one who believes this would be espousing polytheism." After talking about my quotes and then: "Further, I never called you a polytheist" No I suppose you didn't call me a Polytheist; just insinuated it. If we want to get really padantic I never said you called me a polytheist just 'As for calling me a polytheist'. This could mean anyone who would feel compelled to after your insinuation; not necassarily you. You do seem rather padantic though, contrary to your quoting Titus 3:9-11 - "But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile..."

But hey thats religion for you full of contradictions in scripture and belivers. I don't think you should be arguing with me at all really, have alook at these: Timothy 6:20, and the second epistle of Timothy 2:14-16, 3:1-7 All say do not argue with an unbeliever. Then the second epistle of John 1:10-11 takes it even further by saying anyone who even greets an unbeliever shares his wicked work. But before you get your pants in a bunch trying to find a quote to fire back at me I'll do it for you, the first epistle of Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God (yes thats a capital) in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you , with meekness and fear". Just one of the bibles many glaringly obvious contradictions. Maybe I'll take you're "introductory religion or philosophy class" Mateo, I've got a lot I'm obviously confused about. But in the mean time maybe you and Huether could clear a couple of these up for me:

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

MK 6:52 The people were so unimpressed with "the Feeding of the Multitude" that they did not even understand the event. JN 6:14-15 They were so impressed that they tried to force Jesus to be their king.

MK 6:53 After the feeding of the 5000, Jesus and the disciples went to Gennesaret. JN 6:17-25 They went to Capernaum.

MK 10:19 Jesus lists "defraud not" as one of the commandments. EX 20:3-17 There is no such commandment in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the OT)

MK 15:25 It was the third hour when Jesus was crucified. JN 19:14-15 It was after the sixth hour since Jesus was still before Pilate and had not yet been sentenced at that time.

MK 16:1-2 The women came to the tomb to anoint the body. JN 19:39-40 The body had already been anointed and wrapped in linen cloth.

MK 16:5, LK 24:3 The women actually entered the tomb. JN 20:1-2, 11 They did not.

And let's not forget the rape and cannibalism. When you get bored of those I'll bang some more on if you like. They're all courtesy of Donald Morgan and there's a lot more where they came from. When reading them perhaps you could keep the words of ol' Donny in mind:

'Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations- -after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this.'

In Christ Bob (Hennessy)

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 12, 2002.

Oh oh there you go again Bob, such a flurry of quotes in your argument would tend to open up variables, subsequently giving any opposing idiot an easy shot at displaying their uncanny talents in the field of illuding via ignorance.

Not that Im calling anyone here an idiot. "This is what happens when a great deal of intelligence is invested in ignorance. When the need for illusion runs deep" I find this quote from Aeon Flux relevant enough. Any of you lucid types spoken to God and or god yet?

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 13, 2002.

Bob writes:

"And let's not forget the rape and cannibalism. When you get bored of those I'll bang some more on if you like. They're all courtesy of Donald Morgan and there's a lot more where they came from. When reading them perhaps you could keep the words of ol' Donny in mind:

'Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations- -after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this.'"

Which indicates that he doesn't really care what the answers are - in fact, as soon as we show him the Truth about these passages, he will "bang some more on..." just to try and prove he's right. At that rate, we might as well go through each sentance of the Bible and try to explain it to him.

So, rather than give Bob any answers, lets encourage Bob, if he is really interested in learning and not merely playing, to take a Catechism course in which he can have all his questions answered.

Bob - I pray that you will one day be enlightened to the Truth. One of my suggestions is, when reading the Bible, ask first that the Holy Spirit guide you. Also, don't just stop at passages that are confusing, but push on and read the entire Bible; be patient. I've hit passages that didn't make sense, but I kept reading. And little by little these passages are answered by later parts of the Bible. They are opened up when the Holy Spirit wants you to know, not when you want to know.

God bless - In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 13, 2002.

Bob writes:

"However your silence on the rest of the issues I've raised speaks volumes and so does your growing agitation 'Mateo'."

Bob, we've already found you to be wrong. My "silence" on the other issues follows the advice of the Bible:

Proverbs 9:7-12 - "He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. For by me your days will be multiplied, and years will be added to your life. If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; if you scoff, you alone will bear it."

Matthew 7:6 - "...do not throw your pearls before swine...

Romans 16:17 - "I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them."

Now Bob, I have a day job. As much as I would like to help you out, I can't be your personal religion tutor. I recommended that you take a class. I think that's pretty reasonable advice.

So far, your quotes of the Bible are not meant to increase learning or faith; but instead, you intend to mock the Bible. You aren't the first person who's had this idea.

Bob writes:

"You do seem rather padantic though, contrary to your quoting Titus 3:9-11 - 'But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile...'"

Do you think that I'm wasting my time when I read your posts? If so, why do you post?

Bob writes:

"I didn't realise a man of God could get so childishly personal."

I'm a "man of God"? That's a pretty cool title. Thanks. So I'm being childish...I guess that's your opinion.

Bob writes:

"But before you get your pants in a bunch trying to find a quote to fire back at me I'll do it for you..."

Ummm...who's childish?

Bob writes:

"How about we have a look at some of your errors now 'Mateo' and then at the bibles. Mateo you write: "Bob, one who believes this would be espousing polytheism." After talking about my quotes and then: "Further, I never called you a polytheist" No I suppose you didn't call me a Polytheist; just insinuated it. If we want to get really padantic I never said you called me a polytheist just 'As for calling me a polytheist'. This could mean anyone who would feel compelled to after your insinuation; not necassarily you."

Bob, I'm sorry, but you've lost this battle. Your last argument makes no sense. Try again.

Bob writes:

"And let's not forget the rape and cannibalism. When you get bored of those I'll bang some more on if you like. They're all courtesy of Donald Morgan and there's a lot more where they came from. When reading them perhaps you could keep the words of ol' Donny in mind:

'Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations- -after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this.'"

OK, so now you state that you are just giving us someone else's writing via cut-and-paste? You may not be surprised that it's not amazingly appealing to me to put in a lot of effort looking up each of "Donny's" Bible quotes, especially when you've done little more than hit "Ctrl-C" and "Ctrl-V." The last time someone came in with a cut-and-paste litany of Bible quotes, I actually researched each one, only to discover that some were actually non-existent Bible verses. Pearls before swine...

Your new questioning (regarding the Genesis account) may be directed at the wrong faith. You (and Donny) needn't worry: the Catholic Church does not view the Genesis account as if it was written by a reporter, day-by-day. There are important parts of Genesis that the Church defends. For example, there really was a first couple (Adam and Eve) who really did disobey God (original sin). If you're interested, you may read:

FAITH & SCIENCE at Catholic.com

You quote Donny:

"MK 10:19 Jesus lists "defraud not" as one of the commandments. EX 20:3-17 There is no such commandment in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the OT)"

Defraud (verb) To take something [Synonym for steal] from by fraud; swindle:

Exodus 20:15 - "You shall not steal.

Leviticus 19:11 - "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely [Synonym for defraud], nor lie to one another.

You quote Donny:

"MK 6:53 After the feeding of the 5000, Jesus and the disciples went to Gennesaret. JN 6:17-25 They went to Capernaum."

Considering that Capernaum and Gennesaret are about a mile apart, I wouldn't be surprised if they went to both towns. :-)

I hope you're starting to understand that Donny is really grasping for straws to amuse himself.

Bob writes:

"Maybe I'll take you're [your] "introductory religion or philosophy class" Mateo, I've got a lot I'm obviously confused about."

Wonderful. May God bless your efforts,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 13, 2002.

Mateo, you seem to field what I am finding to be an alarming amount of resent towards someone who by your perception, should be well on his way towards an eternity of suffering anyway, or at least dangerously veering towards such. You also seem unusually willing in your attempts to further alienate unbelievers through use of quotes like "do not throw your pearls before swine". I don’t think you should deny that you have been intellectually stimulated, but what can be discerned throughout your posts is a nature that touches on invective. There is compassion in Jake's responses that should perhaps be adopted. I take it you have a fairly well versed understanding of your religion, you do indeed bring credence by displaying your knowledge. However, you should not hope to get through to anyone when you go about clarifying what ever you can in your favour, particularly via your current tone, only to elude what remains. Also, who should deny that the bible is very clever in its juxtaposition of good and bad? But its not like it's the only religion to have survived this long. What we have is a huge variety of paths that all claim to take us to the same heaven. Perhaps more appropriate would be a class in comparative religions. My point being that one can learn how to appreciate more than just God, but God is a restriction on appreciation.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 13, 2002.

With that said I do acknowledge that with God as their medium, only then have many people learnt to appreciate much at all. In fact I acknowledge that thats part of the whole Idea, to be saved, as such. But once again this means is not without multiple methods. I find religions are more territorial. Being as such can be seen as good and bad.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 13, 2002.

I seem to have hit a big 'Phat' nerve. If a am grasping for straws I've got enough to make a army of straw men. Which ironically were also worshipped untill it no longer made sence to do so. Alas the same fate seems to be dawning on the Catholic church and indeed christianity as a whole. Church numbers are at a all time low and falling. Gone are the times when only pettifilliac preists were the only ones permitted to read the bible, now we can all read and see how archaic it's ideas are for ourselves. The only ones left are those like Jake, willing to read through the bible simply ignoring the bits that don't make sence. I'm a little surprised your willing to quote me when I'm being quite sarcastic: 'I'm obviosly confused' and pretend it's in the context you want. But I suppose you get a lot of practice doing that being a catholic. My aim is indeed not to have a round-about answer to all of the bibles contradictions (and I agree that it would be a labourish\impossible task to compile them). But simply to show the ridicularity in doing so. Everything can have an answer if you are willing to stretch your imagination long enough, but you have to consider if your just doing so to meet a particular end. I don't actually think I'm about to convert anyone singlehandedly. But maybe one particularly pathetic day as you sit in church wondering what you did with your life, wondering if things that don't hurt anyone but "GOD" are actually sinful, my words (or the words of someone similar) will be the extra push for you to actually live.

In LIFE and HAPPINESS

Bob (Hennessy)

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 13, 2002.

Hello Sam,

How are you?

You write:

"Mateo, you seem to field what I am finding to be an alarming amount of resent towards someone who

by your perception, should be well on his way towards an eternity of suffering anyway, or at least

dangerously veering towards such."

Sam, I really don't find my comments all that inappropriate. I'll support this position below...

You write:

"You also seem unusually willing in your attempts to further alienate unbelievers through use of

quotes like "do not throw your pearls before swine"."

Sam, maybe you and I aren't reading the same thread. Let me give you my view of the history. Bob arrived here. He presented some accusations and Bible quotes (compiled by someone else), with the intent to mock the Bible and those who view the Bible as the sacred Word of God. Jake and I showed how his (Don's?) arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. Then, Bob basically demanded that all of his accusations must be addressed before...well, I don't think his view would change even after all that. If Bob has a sincere interest in the Bible, I suggested that he enroll in a class to learn more.

In my opinion, when anyone here is posting merely to mock--with no intent to learn--then I think the "pearls before swine" is completely appropriate. The "pearls before swine" is something I apply to all aspects of my life, not only religion. For example, if I was working on a technical proposal for a potential client, and that client didn't value my technical advice, should I continue working? Surely, Sam, you've experienced someone undervaluing the effort that you give to aid them. It's "pearls before swine." It doesn't only happen in the Bible. It's a practical application of age-old wisdom.

Contrary to your supposition that I'm further alienating Bob, I would suggest that Bob is able to see the logic behind my "pearls before swine" comment. It's just common sense...

You write:

"I don’t think you should deny that you have been intellectually stimulated,"

I'd describe it as not-so-intellectual, yet somewhat amusing. I dare say that Bob has been amused. I hope that in the meantime, he's also realized that Christians aren't all as 2-Dimensional as Ned Flanders.

You write:

"but what can be discerned throughout your posts is a nature that touches on invective."

Forgive me, Sam, but I can't seem to see the venomous tone in my posts. Could you provide an example?

Maybe, as Bob says, you have gotten your pants in a bunch! :-)

You write:

"There is compassion in Jake's responses that should perhaps be adopted. I take it you have a fairly

well versed understanding of your religion, you do indeed bring credence by displaying your knowledge.

However, you should not hope to get through to anyone when you go about clarifying what ever you can in

your favour, particularly via your current tone, only to elude what remains."

Sam, I try to have a little sense of humor when someone new comes charging in with the expectation that we Christians are ignorant and that the Bible is easily mocked. I would argue that neither are true. You'll forgive me if I'm not perfect, and my response to such neophytes is to occasionally put them in their place.

Now, Sam, even in his most recent posts, Bob reaffirms that his point is not to hear correction, but merely to mock the Bible. Despite my proving him wrong, he thinks nothing of my responses. Here are Bob's words:

"My aim is indeed not to have a round-about answer to all of the bibles contradictions (and I agree that it would be a labourish\impossible task to compile them). But simply to show the ridicularity [do you mean ridiculosity?] in doing so."

Well, this is the position that I believed Bob to be taking. I've had my little fun proving his accusations baseless. He's set in his ways. Sam, are you surprised that this would be the result? At this point in life, Bob doesn't need God in his life. I can only pray that Bob realizes on his own that God is a reality, regardless of whether we think we need Him or not. I don't think that a bunch of strangers are going to convince Bob that he's wrong...just call me Mr. Negative. :-)

You write:

"Also, who should deny that the bible is very clever in its juxtaposition of good and bad?"

That's an interesting attribute to place on the Bible. I guess that's your opinion.

You write:

"But its not like it's the only religion to have survived this long. What we have is a huge variety

of paths that all claim to take us to the same heaven."

Well, that's true. There are a number of religions that make that claim. We Christians have staked our claim that Jesus Christ alone is truly God.

You write:

"My point being that one can learn how to appreciate more than just God, but God is a restriction on appreciation."

Sam, your opinions are a product of your prejudices. We'll just have to disagree on this.

On to Bob...

Bob writes:

"I seem to have hit a big 'Phat' nerve. If a am grasping for straws I've got enough to make a army of straw men. Which ironically were also worshipped untill it no longer made sence to do so."

Bob, maybe in your world you have a point here...you and your "worshipped straw army?" Ummm...OK, buddy! :-)

"But maybe one particularly pathetic day as you sit in church wondering what you did with your life, wondering if things that don't hurt anyone but "GOD" are actually sinful, my words (or the words of someone similar) will be the extra push for you to actually live."

Bob, you have an active imagination, not to mention you make some funny assumptions about me.

Bob writes:

"Alas the same fate seems to be dawning on the Catholic church and indeed christianity as a whole. Church numbers are at a all time low and falling. Gone are the times when only pettifilliac preists [pedophiliac priests?] were the only ones permitted to read the bible, now we can all read and see how archaic it's ideas are for ourselves."

More of that active imagination mixed with some wishful thinking...I like how you've worded your sentences, though ("Alas...indeed...Gone are the times..."). You sound so impressed with yourself. :-)

Bob, not to be melodramatic (I'm quite serious, actually): have you ever read "The Satanic Bible" by Anton LaVey? If you erase from your mind the notion that it's just about black cats and pentagrams, you might find your own philosophy in line with that of Mr. LaVey (now deceased). Satanism has quite an attractive story to tell: it glorifies self-love and rejoices when individuals deify themselves. The ideas that satanism (and you, by the way) hold are just as old as any major religion. I, personally, find no joy in satanism. Bob, you seem young--I suspect that you're young because you still think you know everything! :-)

It would be interesting to see how your views will change as you age. Maybe one day, you'll sit in a church, wondering what you did with your life, wondering what you gained by living for yourself instead of others, my words (or the words of someone similar) will be the extra push for you to actually live.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 14, 2002.

Mateo: You like the way I word my sentences? Well I like the way you randomly repeat me as if your actually making some kind of point. I'm sure your very old and humble Mateo. I'm sure it's easy to put things down to hot headed youth who've learnt to use CTRL-C and CTRL-V. But maybe you're the one who is un-willing to learn. Just becuse I didn't personally compile certain qoutes doesn't make them any less relevent. Just to clarify I haven't written anything here with the intention of mocking the bible. I actually find the bible very interesting; I just think it's important to except it for what it is. (And yes I have read the satanic bible and I personally belive LaVey was an atheist. I think he just recognised peoples love of ritual and desire to belive in 'something'.) If you don't mind my asking exactly how old are you Mateo? When can expect to become so enlightened?

In Christ

Bob (Hennessy)

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 14, 2002.

Hi, I guess I'm so so. And yourself?

So you're saying Mateo, that you have no intention towards Bob, other than to have "fun" by putting him in his place? Or rather, to put him in his place which happens to involve "fun"? Honestly, if I was the one dealing with someone who seemed to be an at all likely candidate for an eternity of doom, I might think about throwing the swine something a little more appetising than a "pearl", as oppose to making any attempt at putting him in his place. Placed in the line to the slaughterhouse perhaps? Is that not a "swine's" place? If you had fun doing such a thing I wouldn’t say resent I'd say malice. Unless of course you're one of those people who think pigs make good pets (- : whoa, overactive imagination…imagination…

I find your invective approach is best characterised by how you bring satirical into critical. Condescending, or underhanded, that kind of thing, e.g.

"Reading comprehension...reading comprehension... "

"I can't be your personal religion tutor"

"Bob, I'm sorry, but you've lost this battle. Your last argument makes no sense. Try again." "Wonderful. May God bless your efforts"

I know I don’t need to explain how each one of these could be seen as satirical when put in context, and I also sense you may want to tell me why they were obviously intended otherwise, I'm sure you could. However I cant tell whether or not the use of :-)'s is your way of trying to prove that you really are happy and complacent, or if you think they make a fine coup de grace in your crippling rebuttals. I don’t know if I spelt that right or not, but you can correct me. Actually you would have to be the first I've seen that highlights and corrects other peoples spelling errors on a forum :-D. That’s good though, at least you have some compassion. But Im highlighting right now...highlighting...

You do well to identify Bobs being amused. Naturally I guess, you mean to assert your ability to match his sardonic approach, or at least establish that you're capable of making fun also. You are being defensive, human. Fair enough. However why not put your differences aside, as you have the benefit of being enlightened to the truth right, could you hope to achieve more in your life?

Did you actually think that attribute was interesting, or were you kidding?

I am a former Christian, baptised at birth, attended bible class, Sunday school, blah blah blah. How am supposed to preconceive opinions on some thing I was born and raised by? In the womb perhaps? My opinions are a product of observation. An opinion of me as otherwise could be a prejudice in itself.

Ps: I'm liking the way you organise your writing Mateo, very sensible.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 15, 2002.

You bring up an interesting point about Mateo's spelling corrections Sam. I must admit my spelling is particularly aweful. I notice it is often a weak point poeple pick on when they have little to actually say but feel the need to defend themselves somehow. Mateo actually has taken it fairly easy on me; you should check out what he said on the Marijuana thread to some poor fool:

'Tony, here's some friendly advice. Please take your time in writing a post so that you reduce your spelling errors. More importantly, if you have ideas you'd like to share, try to read through your text to make sure that it is easy for others to see the meaning behind your post. Structure your sentences to more effectively present your ideas'

As you might put it Mateo: Um, who sounds impressed with themselves? If only we all had your gramatical genuis.

In Christ,

Bob (Hennessy)

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 15, 2002.

Give Bob some of your "genuis," Mateo. I'd like some of your "genius" instead.

Bob, it's time for you to do some defenestration on your way out.

-- AbbeyRoad (HeCameInThrough@TheSmallDirtyBathroom.Window), September 15, 2002.

Hello Bob,

How's it going? Here are some responses.

You write:

"Just to clarify I haven't written anything here with the intention of mocking the bible."

I don't know how you could make this claim, nor why you would want to make it. Considering the position of Donald Morgan, I don't know why you'd post his quotes unless you intended to mock the Bible.

You write:

"And yes I have read the satanic bible and I personally belive LaVey was an atheist. I think he just recognised peoples love of ritual and desire to belive in 'something'."

That's an interesting opinion. When I read the Satanic Bible, I didn't see the emphasis on ritual or push to "believe in something." In fact, to the contrary, the "Satanic Bible" spends most of its time telling you not to worry about ritual, and to simply "enjoy" life by abandoning any restrictive moral teachings. In satanism, the "sin" (if you could call it that) is to ignore one's own base desires.

The satanist who "frees" himself from these "restrictions" has merely become a slave to his passions, according to Christianity. Many other religions share the same view as Christianity.

Spelling

OK, now you guys are getting upset with me for correcting spelling errors. Well, here's what I've corrected:

Heres [Here's] -- OK, I'm nit picking. Strike 1.

you're [your] -- Strike 2.

pettifilliac preists [pedophiliac priests?] -- Now, pettifilliac? That's almost beyond recognition!

ridicularity [ridiculosity] -- In this case, "ridicularity" is not a word. This is not a misspelling. That's like saying "strategery" (Saturday Night Live) is a misspelling. To be honest, I don't remember ever hearing the real word "ridiculosity" used, either.

Regarding Tony, I wasn't correcting him to belittle him or being "impressed with myself." I really could not understand his writing. If you think that I was being tough on Tony, you may want to review some of his posts.

Now Bob, you may suppose that I'm picking on your spelling because I have "little to actually say." Anyone who reads through the thread will see that I've had plenty of substance to counter Donald Morgan's quotes.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 15, 2002.

AbbeyRoad: Your entire post seems to be an excuse just to use the word 'defenestration'. Who is it you are suggesting I defenestrate? Maybe you and Gail could form a cheerleading team that just randomly posts 'Go Catholics!!!' every once in a while and you wouldn't be forced to actually say anything.

Hello Mateo, It's going fine. How old were you again? I've honestly become curious.

Titus 3:9-11 - "But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Why on earth did you ever quote this Mateo? It pisses in your face every time you post.

Sadly, I lent my Satanic Bible to someone who has yet to return it so I can't give exact quotes. I do recall however it is diveded into three basic sections. The first imitates (Christian) bible verse and sets the reader up for a relationship with satan: something to belive in, the second section is basicly just LaVeys personal philosophy on life (which you have already began to biasly outline), and the third is completly devoted to Satanic ritual. If your eternal soul is up to it go and have another look I think you will find I am right. Now the reason I suspect LaVey is an atheist is that in the introduction of The Satnic Bible (or somewhere early) he says something along the lines of 'It is important while reading this book to recognise the differences between what is fiction and what isn't'. I automatically assumed only the second section fell into the 'isn't' catergory which would pretty much make him an atheist. I could be wrong.

'The satanist who "frees" himself from these "restrictions" has merely become a slave to his passions' Now what a bizare thing to say. To me this is like saying: 'He who frees himself from slavery becomes a slave to liberation'. Being a slave to my passions seems like an okay fate to me.

Now I don't feel Donald Morgan is mocking the bible just those who take it to be the 'say all end all'. He would probibly do the same to people who took any work of fiction that may have originally been derived from legend (the Odyssey, King Arthur etc) so seriously.

-- THE SMALLER DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 15, 2002.

Good morning, Bob.

Bob writes:

"Why on earth did you ever quote this Mateo? It pisses in your face every time you post."

Bob, you're so funny! Mr. Vulgarity...it's so funny that Sam keeps defending you as some defenseless victim whose tender little ears can't handle my "invective" posts.

Personally, I get the impression that Sam really wants you to play the victim role (just as he wants me to be the mean Christian); but you're not helping him. Maybe you don't see yourself as the helpless victim that Sam wants to portray you as. Hmmmm...

Bob, regarding Titus, it is good advice. I should probably follow it. But then if I followed it, our little game would end! Don't worry, though: I'm getting bored....

Bob writes:

"The first imitates (Christian) bible verse and sets the reader up for a relationship with satan:"

Bob, are you just making this stuff up? Share with me what the most important holy day of the year is for a satanist. Surely, you remember the answer to this simple trivia question.

Bob writes:

"Now what a bizare thing to say. To me this is like saying: 'He who frees himself from slavery becomes a slave to liberation'."

Bob, we've got thousands of years of human experience to back me up on this one.

Bob writes:

"Being a slave to my passions seems like an okay fate to me."

Good luck. I hope you don't end up in the despair that other people find after choosing this path. How will it go? "Maybe one particularly pathetic day..."

Thanks,

Mateo el viejito.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 16, 2002.

You don't seem comfortable revealing your age Mateo; well I guess can respect that.

Come on Mateo 'Mr Vulgarity'is taking it a bit far. Your God uses much worse language than a little pissing metaphore:

Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to rememberbrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whoses flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. --Ezekiel 23:19-20

Or perhaps you would prefer an actual pissing metaphore:

If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me ... out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:37-38

Maybe I'm wrong that kinda sounded like it was ment litterally...

Mateo writes: 'it's so funny that Sam keeps defending you as some defenseless victim'

When Sam writes: 'you mean to assert your ability to match his[my] sardonic approach, or at least establish that you're capable of making fun also.'

Sounds like Sams taliking about both of us. He at lest is hardly portraying me as a victim. As for invectivity. Please feel free to be as invective as you like if it serves your purpose; you wouldn't want to break Catholic tradition.

Mateo writes: 'Bob, regarding Titus, it is good advice. I should probably follow it. But then if I followed it, our little game would end! Don't worry, though: I'm getting bored.... '

You purposely defy the Bible to play games? WITH ME!? I'm complemented. I suppose you're paying me back for refering to you as a man of God. However I do agree this is getting a little boring. I'm just sad a never got any interpretations for Dueteronomy 21:10-11,13 and II Samuel 12:11-12 right back at the top. I can accept my weakness in Isreali geography or knowledge of the defference between 'God' and god. But those two quotes just simply show the OT is a result of the people of the time and not an eternal, all-knowing God.

Mateo writes:'Bob, are you just making this stuff up?'

I assure you I'm not making anything up and I encourage you to check it out. I think I can forgive you for not knowing your Satanic Bible to well though. :)

As for 'thousands of years of human experience'. All these have shown is the peak and rapid decline of Christianity. One day that will be anything but pathetic the last of you will give it up or more likely die out. Then the world won't have to endure the outlets of Christian repression (how do you spell that thing so many Catholic priests are again).

-- THE SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 17, 2002.

Carefull Bob, he might ask for 'your' age.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 17, 2002.

Bob write:

"Come on Mateo 'Mr Vulgarity'is taking it a bit far. Your God uses much worse language than a little pissing metaphore:"

Let's go to the dictionary:

Vulgar (adj) - 1. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.

OK, so when I was in elementary school, I laughed when a donkey was referred to as an ass. Boy that was funny...then. Neither Ezekiel nor the translators were being vulgar, though.

Bob writes:

"He at lest is hardly portraying me as a victim."

Bob, the quote you took from Sam has nothing to do with my point.

Bob writes:

"You purposely defy the Bible to play games?"

Bob, I am not defying a command. It's advice.

Bob writes:

"I assure you I'm not making anything up and I encourage you to check it out. I think I can forgive you for not knowing your Satanic Bible to well though. :)"

Bob, your reading comprehension problems are cropping up here, as they were earlier in the thread. Considering you didn't answer my simple trivia question, I'm starting to doubt you read (or understood) LaVey's book.

Bob writes:

"As for 'thousands of years of human experience'. All these have shown is the peak and rapid decline of Christianity. One day that will be anything but pathetic the last of you will give it up or more likely die out. Then the world won't have to endure the outlets of Christian repression (how do you spell that thing so many Catholic priests are again)."

Oohhh...boy, Bob. Good comeback. Thank goodness you're such a beacon of truth...or is that a bacon of truth? :-)

Bob, if you and Sam need to know my age, it's on the forum. Why don't you do some research?

Mateo el viejito

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 17, 2002.

Mateo, as a former Atheist (my handle was "Atheist Gal" at the Internet Infidels forum, in case anyone wants to double check), I would just like to give you some encouragement. Trust me, there is simply no answer you can give this person that will change his mind; he will *never* concede that you are right. He can't -- because his whole argument is based upon the assumption that he, as an Atheist, is, *for that one reason*, the intellectual superior of every Theist. If he ever meets a Theist who can best him in an argument, it'll be the beginning of the end!

Sadly, most Atheists are just as close-minded as the narrowest of fundamentalists -- it literally takes an act of God to open them up. I pray that will happen to "Bob" up there.

Love, :-)

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_lehman@hotmail.com), September 17, 2002.

Try Mechanist.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 17, 2002.

A "mechanist" is one who believes in "Mechanism."

"Mechanism -- (noun). Philosophy The doctrine that all natural phenomena are explicable by material causes and mechanical principles."

Sam, are you a man (as in Samuel/Samson) using a woman's e-mail address? Or are you a woman (as in Samantha) also named Jane (or using Jane's e-mail address?

Why are you so puffed up with pride that you think you know better than almost all the most brilliant people who ever lived -- far more brilliant than you -- who believed in God and saw the folly of Mechanism? Only one in twenty people is an atheist/mechanist, and many of that ignorant 5% come around to the truth in the final years of their lives.

Did you once believe in the existence of God? If so, how did he let you down, causing you to punish him by pretending not to believe in him? Since God is mankind's loving Father, is the problem that your earthly father harmed you, so your Mechanism is only a "defense mechanism" [no pun intended] -- hating or denying the existence of the greatest Father of all?

I challenge you to pray sincerely, each day for a month, "If you exist, 'God,' reveal yourself to me. I am an honest person, and I don't want to think and say that you are not there if you really are."

-- I am (knocking@the.door), September 18, 2002.

Christine L.,

Thanks for your post. I don't know if I told you, but a few months ago you posted a link to your website. I took some time to read through your site. If you don't mind, I'd like to share with our atheist/mechanist/henotheist visitors one of your links to a forum specifically devoted to debating atheism vs. theism.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2002.

Here's the Scoop:

Just becuse (good start.) I didn't personally compile certain qoutes doesn't make them any less relevent. (He thinks he's relevant.) Just to clarify I haven't written anything here with the intention of mocking the bible. (Looks like a plan.) I actually find the bible very interesting.

(Pick one up, once in a while. Don't crib from another bigot's tracts.) -- Another Swifty:

''You purposely defy the Bible to play games? WITH ME!? I'm complemented. (Spell-check?) I suppose you're paying me back for refering (sp check) to you as a man of God. However I do agree this is getting a little boring. (You started out boring.) I'm just sad a (Wha???) never got any interpretations for Dueteronomy 21:10-11,13 and II Samuel 12:11-12 right back at the top. ((Sad Sack.)

I can accept my weakness in Isreali (Tel Aviv real estate?) geography or knowledge of the defference (a defference?) between 'God' and god. But those two quotes just simply (You say simply, WELL you are Simple.) show the OT is a result of the people of the time and not an eternal, all-knowing God. (Did the people all pitch in on Deuteronomy?) How was it the people of the time figured out who was and who wasn't a prophet?

And is the OT a one-sided Covenant? What's the defference --?

The protests of Cool Cats on a roll; a Window he can't see out of and His friend ''Sam I Yam.'' --This is no fun if nobody gets angry. If I were angry I would join in the fun. Right now I'm going out and wash my windows. Cool!

___________

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 18, 2002.

I am Sam, a man, a man called Sam, thats who I am. The email address belongs to the owner of his computer and we share. "Why are you so puffed up with pride that you think you know better than almost all the most brilliant people who ever lived"

I'd be interested to know how you were able to discern such a conclusion based on my words. I mean "try mechanist" isnt exactly the most comprehensive post you'd see. Although, It worked out vaugely towards my intention, ie. To broach some discussion on the topic. Otherwise I was merely suggesting what belief Bob may be subscribed to. Also, while clarification is on topic, let me clarify something for every one: I would never write off anyones worth because of what they belived in, especially not their intelligence. I have best friends who are christian. I'd be more inclined to think less of the people who seem to regard me inside the perspectives they may have taken from other atheists; different people. I'd challenge every one here who does, to stop imagining you know people so well beyond their posts, we do not look or neccecarily act like are arguments, you cannot consider your data qualitive.

"far more brilliant than you -- who believed in God and saw the folly of Mechanism? Only one in twenty people is an atheist/mechanist, and many of that ignorant (carefull invective :D) 5% come around to the truth in the final years of their lives."

Believed in God, saw the folly of Mechanism or Believed in Mechanism and saw the folly of God. Brilliance can be found in all quaters my friend. Bound to be hundereds of christians much smater than me and you, and hundereds of atheists much smarter than me and you. Varibles, variables, variables, although not to say "Da Da".

"Did you once believe in the existence of God? If so, how did he let you down, causing you to punish him by pretending not to believe in him? Since God is mankind's loving Father, is the problem that your earthly father harmed you(what was I saying about presumptions? Or is this invective as well :0 ), so your Mechanism is only a "defense mechanism" [no pun intended] -- hating or denying the existence of the greatest Father of all?"

What can I say, hmm? Well I was a timid little boy, very apprehensive. I just joined in with it, thought church was fun, at 9 years old I did. I didnt so much start pretending as stop. You see I never took it seriously at all. Eventually I started paying attention because I thought maybe I should, subsequently my enthusiasm of which there was never that much, regressed. Obviously I had a poor christian upbringing.

"I challenge you to pray sincerely, each day for a month, "If you exist, 'God,' reveal yourself to me. I am an honest person, and I don't want to think and say that you are not there if you really are.""

As a youngen I did similar things, you see I wanted God to touch me so I could roll around in hysterics like those other people.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 19, 2002.

*damn* I meant "this computer" the owner of *this* computer. Yes she is female by the by.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 19, 2002.

Dear Sam,
You go whimsical about faith as if it were already rejected on its own merits. I mean, that you had it once and found it unproductive. The jovial attitude doesn't show your scorn, just a palsy-palsy counter-argument meant as trivia for the plebs. As far as that goes, you succeed. But your soul hasn't been caught up yet. The Sunday school they sent you to was no avenue to grace; so you haven't seen what the Gospel really gives us.

Mateo has. I have, and many others here have. We came to Jesus Christ by diverse paths, and once we found Him our souls were really transformed.

Let me just say, follow us. We have room here for jokers. Your style isn't all that contrary to the Catholic faith.

The Dirty Window wants his/her humor to reflect real scorn; and he/she deserves scorn in reply. There's no better way to cope with the style of a Dirty Window than soap and water. If he/she returns, we'll give the panes a scrub, trust me. We haven't ''ignored'' the Old Testament scriptures in our Catholic faith. We read them too.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 19, 2002.

I took part in a lot more than sunday school. Uhh I cant write much more, I have to go. But, *ack* If I joke a couple of times it does not mean I'm simply a joker persay, I dont know about that being my style, if any.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 19, 2002.

Well eugeme I'm ready for my scrub (you make it sound so sexy), and welcome to the ranks you'll fit right in with the "little to actually say but feel the need to defend themselves somehow" groupies. Get a pen out and note down some more spelling mistakes\typos. Cool!

Mateo writes: "OK, so when I was in elementary school, I laughed when a donkey was referred to as an ass. Boy that was funny...then. Neither Ezekiel nor the translators were being vulgar, though"

I don't know why your bagging on my reading comp. Go back and have another look at Ezekiel 23:19-20 and see if you can work out what I'm talking about (hint: it's not to do with your devoid childhood sence of humour).

Ah Mateo, don't you dare not think I aprieciate the irony of your criticism of MY knowledge of the Satanic bible. You're problem goes far beyond that of reading comprehension. In fact whatever you were reading seems to be missing the last 30-40 pages which outline clearly all the ritual that you don't seem to think exists.

Mateo writes: "Bob, I am not defying a command. It's advice."

Please tell me someone else sees the humour in Mateo being this padantic over Titus 3:9-11 'advising' him not to be.

I AM(?) writes: "I challenge you to pray sincerely, each day for a month, "If you exist, 'God,' reveal yourself to me. I am an honest person, and I don't want to think and say that you are not there if you really are."

I'm actually starting to feel a little guilty. These are desperate words of a sad individual who obviously needs something to belive in. I would never try to convince you 'I AM' to even consider atheism. It's people like you who really need religion. I'm sorry for whatever life delt you but please continue to belive in God. If anything you read here or anywhere else makes you re-consider your beliefs just remember that faith is stronger than logic.

In Christ,

Bob (Hennesy)

-- THE SMALLER DIRTIER WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 23, 2002.

Yes, Smaller Dirty Window:
You can have your ''logic''; and welcome to it. For some that's enough. If you have no faith, I can't give it to you. I'm logical enough about the mundane things of life. Logic tells me I'll soon die, just as my ancestors died. Logic may be stronger than faith (to you). Yet, what good is it going to do you after you're dead?

Logic would indicate your bones will be no different from the dry bones of a dog or a cat. Because even without the love of logic, they lived and died. You are just going to prove equal to cats and dogs!

You'll die and your logic will die with you. Dogs die, just the same, without need for logic.

I hope to die despite your logic. My soul will live; and I'll remember you then. Your logic and my faith will come to mind again; and your poor spelling.

Faith will be the only difference between you and me, Dirty W. You gave up; you didn't go the distance. But, Hell-- You felt superior all the while you lived! It made you happy to see how logical you were. Then you'll have to kiss it all goodbye. Dust you are and to dust you shall return, Dusty Window. Smaller, dustier window, etc., etc.

___

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 23, 2002.

Bob writes:

"Get a pen out and note down some more spelling mistakes\typos."

Bob, you might want to invest in a spell checker. Uh-oh, where's Sam to denounce me as a mean Christian hurling insults at the defenseless, dirty window. Oh, the tragedy...

"Ah Mateo, don't you dare not think [double negative?] I aprieciate the irony of your criticism of MY knowledge of the Satanic bible. You're problem goes far beyond that of reading comprehension. In fact whatever you were reading seems to be missing the last 30-40 pages which outline clearly all the ritual that you don't seem to think exists."

Bob, it is ironic that you still are unable to answer my simple question. Do you really not know the answer? If you could either answer the question or admit your ignorance, I would be happy to discuss your pet theories. But you are part of the group that has "little to actually say but feel the need to defend themselves somehow." You're afraid to actually face my simple question. Why are you scared of a simple question from a "man of God"?

Bob writes:

"Please tell me someone else sees the humour in Mateo being this padantic over Titus 3:9-11 'advising' him not to be."

I see the humor in you misspelling "pedantic" every time you've used the word. If you want to impress everyone with your big SAT words, could you at least do a spell check on them?

Also, though you may decry my being "padantic," I am not (following the metaphor) giving you "pearls." I'm asking you a question about LaVey's Satanic Bible. Why are you afraid to answer?

Eugene writes:

"Faith will be the only difference between you and me, Dirty W. You gave up; you didn't go the distance. But, Hell-- You felt superior all the while you lived! It made you happy to see how logical you were. Then you'll have to kiss it all goodbye. Dust you are and to dust you shall return, Dusty Window. Smaller, dustier window, etc., etc."

Faith will be the only difference. Well, faith and the ability to use a spell-checker... ;-)

Enjoy,

Mateo el cansado.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 24, 2002.

Mateo,
It's a pity Dirty Bob hasn't bothered to read your Sept 11 post. You gave him good advice. He opened this thread with a blur of shadow-boxing, and it comes down to him surrendering with a smile {{{sEG]]]. Quite a philosopher, that one!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 24, 2002.

It may surprise you guys but my life does not revolve around this forum. I don't care about my spelling errors and I'm not about to take the time to correct them. Mateo, you've made a few yourself ( let thee who is without sin...) but I must admit my attention was only brought to them by someone else who was reading this thread. If you recall Mateo I had to ask you a question three times before I got an answer (even that wasn't a real answer)and now I have done the same. It's been three years since I last read the Satanic Bible, but if i recall the most important day of the year for a Satanist - according to LaVey- is his birthday (I'm ready to be corrected). Maybe before you start telling me what it actually is you could take a look at the last 30-40 pages and we can both be wrong. You two have both managed to show your true colors(thats nz spelling). It's obvious why you both belive.

Mateo writes: 'The satanist who "frees" himself from these "restrictions" has merely become a slave to his passions' 'Good luck. I hope you don't end up in the despair that other people find after choosing this path. How will it go?'

Mateo you obviously need the sence of order the church provides. This would explain your constant need to correct spelling (I take this from several threads). You don't even really know if you belive but you fear what life would be like for you if you were left to your own devices.( Perhaps you've gone off the rails before?)

Eugene writes: 'I hope to die despite your logic. My soul will live; and I'll remember you then. Your logic and my faith will come to mind again...' 'Faith will be the only difference between you and me, Dirty W. You gave up; you didn't go the distance.'

Very heart felt (I'm sorry I left out your witty comments). You fall into a more typical group of theist Eugene, and you know it. You don't want to accept this is all there is. You really wish you could live eternally and so you will. The alternative of 'proving the equal of cats and dogs' is just too much for you. I suppose it is a daunting prospect.

Like most religious arguements it's come down to the theists saying 'I don't care what you say ha ha my souls eternal'. Whatever, bigones. Just don't say I'm the one going through life feeling superior. See you in hell,

Bob (Hennessy)

-- THe SMALL DIRTY WINDOW (bob@hotmail.com), September 25, 2002.

Ha, Mateo, I wouldn't be surprised if your spongy boomerang shaped arguments bore no more impact than would a popped balloon animal. Nor would I likewise, should the dilution of your soapy Christian solution be lacking constitution for a real contribution.

Do we digress to play with words now?

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 25, 2002.

So if I'm not mistaken, the spongy boomerang, when used with the soapy Christianity which is not watered down but full strength, would be the best solution to clean the stain of sin?

Sam, I think you might be onto something. Or on something. Maybe.

-- (mr@clean.con), September 25, 2002.

Before someone else jumps on me I meant: 'Let he who is without sin...'.

-- The small dirty window (bob@hotmail.com), September 25, 2002.

Man Bob,

I must have really hurt your feelings. I'm sorry; I didn't know you were so sensitive.

You wrote:

"You don't even really know if you belive but you fear what life would be like for you if you were left to your own devices.( Perhaps you've gone off the rails before?)"

Interesting psychobabble. And I should we conclude that your hatred of authority (or an "ordered world") reflects your disappointment in your relationship with your father? LOL

You corrected yourself:

"Before someone else jumps on me I meant: 'Let he who is without sin...'."

You corrected yourself with an incorrect correction! It's "Let him who is without sin..." :-) I have trouble with this grammatical situation, too. But, as you have described, my correcting you reflects that I "obviously need the sence of order the church provides." Hahahaha! OK, Mr. Psychologist.

Also, I find it humorous that, earlier, you wrote:

"now we can all read and see how archaic [the Bible's] ideas are for ourselves."

Now, it's interesting that in your last post, you have quoted the Bible as a source of wisdom. So much for "archaic ideas"...

You write:

"It's been three years since I last read the Satanic Bible, but if i recall the most important day of the year for a Satanist - according to LaVey- is his birthday (I'm ready to be corrected)."

If you remember waaaaay back when, you wrote:

"The first [section] imitates (Christian) bible verse and sets the reader up for a relationship with satan"

I don't think that this statement has any basis in reality. The selling point of satanism is self-deification (this is why the satanist's b-day is important), not a "relationship with satan." Since you consider yourself an expert in the subject, would you mind quoting the LaVey's book to support your argument that he thinks a "relationship with satan" is important? I can't find even an emphasis on a "relationship with satan," let alone an entire section dedicated to setting up such a relationship. But, you're the expert, so I'll look to you for the answer.

You also write:

"And yes I have read the satanic bible and I personally belive LaVey was an atheist. I think he just recognised peoples love of ritual and desire to belive in 'something'."

I don't know how you reconcile the two statements that I quoted. First, you write that LaVey spends the first section of his book setting the reader up for a "relationship with satan." Then, you claim that LaVey is an atheist denies satan's existence. Why would a man (who mocks theists for their "invented gods") turn around and invent his own god to satisfy their own "emotional needs"? Isn't that hypocrisy? Aren't satanists supposed to be above hypocrisy? Are satan and satanic rituals "emotional crutches" for the socially unpopular satanist?

Well, there are a couple of possibilities to why LaVey wrote the book:

1) LaVey believes that those who follow his book's teachings are worshiping him "by proxy." That would make him a hypocrite, making fools out of those who would believe his book. A "father of lies," so to speak. His book would advocate most of the same practices it denounced in theism.

2) LaVey believes in satan and the supernatural. I think this is more likely...just my opinion.

I'm glad you can actually answer my question. I actually wanted to discuss the topic with you more; but, you seemed to be focused on the personal attacks.

Sam, you write:

"...spongy boomerang shaped arguments..."

I like the imagery in your writing. It makes me want to go out and throw a spongy boomerang. Does nerf still make boomerangs?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 25, 2002.

It's a spiritual boost for me and most other faithful Catholics when a tinhorn has his say, gets it all off his chest.

My friend the Dirty Window can't understand. It should fill me with resentment. I should gnash my teeth and curse the sound of his program, taking him very, very seriously. Instead, my systems are all ''GO''.

On account of??? On account of the compassion I feel for this wanderer, who can't rustle up any desire for eternal life. I'm not angry, or appalled. I see Dirty Window as the injured, tiny chick-bird; unable to fly; without a nest and unhappy. My heart says, pick up his little frame. Give him a drop of water. Help him!

It isn't every day my charity is fully awakened by God's grace. I wish it were. On some occasions here in our forum, I've tangled uncharitably with good people; unable to see things their way. Maybe unwilling.

But for this one, all my impulses are to offer him hope. No more. His peeping is pathetic, and I'm an old softy, really. No need to add to that. But a boost; yes. I feel more Christian because of the lost souls who speak to me. They would be faithful, if they could.

Jesus Christ said more or less clearly. ''No one can come to me unless the father send Him.'' Let's just all pray for grace; to be finally taken to Bob the Closed Window. He isn't all aware yet; his windows are shut, and we're knocking on them. He 's home, but he's reading up on Satanism and other tragic lifestyles. If he had a life, maybe he'd wish it were eternal. Let's ask God to give him the grace. Amen--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 25, 2002.

"So if I'm not mistaken, the spongy boomerang, when used with the soapy Christianity which is not watered down but full strength, would be the best solution to clean the stain of sin? Sam, I think you might be onto something. Or on something. Maybe."

Ouch, how acidic are we talking?

No I'm not on acid 0_o.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 26, 2002.

Dear Sam:
If you aren't very worried about your sins; well, worry about mine. Worry about your mother's. Sin is always more distressful viewed in another. I was figuring your sin and your neighbor's had need of cleansing; not my own. Now you've opened my old eyes. I need for you to pray for me, Old Chap.

Salvation and sponges can be helpful when no other way is available. Now we have to corner you and give you the old spongeing! HA! Come On, odd-smelling beaver-bottom! Take your bath!

______________

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 26, 2002.

Lest in some ones mind I should appear as a tiresome proverbial maelstrom, citric may become hydrochloric, and should such constitution fail to dissolve the material of my disposition, I would otherwise fear drowning!

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 26, 2002.

Yes, thinking about it: You are kind of tiresome.

-- euguene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 27, 2002.

'Deception as a means to an end'. People strike me as very partial to this. god knows 'I' am (did he tell you).

Lets imagine that this "transformation" experienced has something to do with things being put into a very appetising perspective. The transformation is obviously going to be about as profound as is the difference between the old perspective and the new one. This makes sense yes? Things only changing as much as they need to? Heaven does sound great, especially in comparison to hell. (Although in my opinion, I dont think teachers stress the significance of Hell nearly enough.) If one does truly become convinced one day that their life will amount to eternal bliss, I expect the moment would be profound enough them. Obviously one must in turn accept and embrace the presence of God. Not to much to ask really, when you think about it, who cares if his past seems sketchy.

-- Sam (janecherrington@paradise.net.nz), September 27, 2002.