From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.evil
Subject: Re: this is from DEMIGOD
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:29:01 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov8.213518.2191@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>You are all fools.

We will see about that when you find yourself dead and in hell, monkeyboy.

>	First of all I want to make this clear. I do not believe in God, or at
>least not the Christian one.

God == Christian one

>However, I will play the Devil's Advocate. (Pardon the expression.)

Ask not alt.evilers' forgiveness.  They are atheistic/nihilistic schmoes for
the most part.  Thus, they have nothing to offer you.

>	The main problem I have with the arguments used by the anti-God/God is
>a tyrant crowd is that you argue about him in "human" terms.

Don't give me any of your pantheistic bullshit.

>If,
>hypothetically, God exists, and I mean the omniscient, omnipotent being, we can
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ||||||||||||||
Unbelieving scum.

>not apply our concepts of justice to him.

>	Think about it. If a right or wrong, good or evil way exists and you
>know what it is without a doubt, then their is no reason why you should be
>forgiving to those who refuse to listen despite your attempts to help them.

More relativistic bullshit.  Read the fucking manual.

>	Assuming you knew the correct way of things then those who refuse to
>comply would therefore pay the consequences; again assuming that this higher
>justice requires punishment for wrong-doing. (In other words, God is saying,
>"Hey, you guys can go to hell!" ...comic relief, ha,ha,ha.

This reminds me of a joke I heard:
Q: How many non-believers are in hell?
A: None, they all believe now.

>	So, my friends, we cannot argue about God's tyranny when He is merely
>establishing the true universal order.  I try to argue the modern Christians
>are corrupting many of the original beliefs of this religion because "it
>applies to today's standards."

Fuck yourself with a chainsaw.  Christianity is the _most_ modern idea of our
time _because_ it is concerned with establishing the true universal order.

>That is not belief in God, that is being
>arrogant enough to be God and change a religion to what you believe instead of
>trying to understand the Deity.

You understand this and yet still you try to prettify God into a form that is
pleasing to you rather than accepting his revealed form in the Book.  You make
me want to hurl chunks.

>If you call yourselves Christians then believe
>what He said originally, if you make new rules then call yourselves by
>another name.

That is why you call yourself DEMIGOD, you goddamn pharaoh.

>I have more respect for fanatical fundamentalists because the
>show true faith in standing by what God said originally in your sacred Bible.

What hypocritical bullshit.  First you ridicule the very notion of God and
then you profess respect for fundamentalists inserting the derogatory term
fanatical.  You speak out of the same side of the mouth you spit.

>	(Yes, I know, it is blind faith like a bunch of lemmings

Sin without blind faith is more to the point.  Unbelievers are lemmings at the
brink of the chasm called HELL.

>but I am not argueing whether or not this is good or bad,

Of course not, you damned relativist.

>I am saying they at least attempt
>to preserve what they believe in instead of customizing a religion for their
>own purposes.)

Unlike you who have a religion all spelled out for you which you use as toilet
paper.  Someone ought to stuff your scrotum up your nasal cavity.

>	And, finally, to the person who asked if we were given a choice of
>eternal torture or changing to right-handedness, let me say this:

Obviously someone with more of a fucking clue than fucking you.

>	I don't care who you are, if God, whether good or bad, came to you and
>said, "You will convert or suffer the most unimaginable pain for eternity." and 
>he proved he could, YOU WILL CONVERT!

And you better believe it you heathen jizz-face.