From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:04:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct13.221517.7609@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.215313.6190@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>> In article <1992Oct10.111919.7469@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>Good to hear that.
> 
>>>> third world countries is conditional on acceptance of christianity. Also, much
>>>
>>>No, I doubt that.  Why would people by the thousands gather outside a church to
>>>praise and worship God (the inside was already filled!) and hear the good news?
>> 
>> Same reason people go to greatful dead concerts under the same conditions.
>> What does this have to do with xtian missionaries helping 3rd worlders on 
>> condition of conversion of christianity. You seem to be supporting my comments.
>
>I was saying that there have been whole countries that have converted to Christ
>at times.
>
	Without any prodding?  I don't think so.  Often it's like a sick 
variation of stupid human tricks:  "He said the Lord's Prayer!  Give this
little starving boy a cracker!"  Ok, so I'm exaggerating a bit, but the
point is that suffering people should be offered help unconditionally or
not at all.  To bring your religion along with the food these people so
desperately need is an abuse of your position and their situation.

>>>   
>>>> of the problems in (christian) third-world countries are a direct result of
>>>> christianity; overpopulation, exploitation of the lower classes (xtians make 
>>>> ideal slaves), ecological disasters.
>>>
>>>Ahhh...no.
>> 
>> Nice comeback! Any figures to quote? Refutations? Just plain ol denial huh?
>> You would think that since you have been denying this assertion of mine for
>> something like 4 months now, you would be able to come up with a better answer
>> than that. Perhaps not.
>
>Why not just plain denial?  Doesn't take much to refute that one.
> 
	If it doesn't take much, give it a shot.  I'd be curious to see how
you can deny that Xianisation or attempt thereof of American Indians led to
anything but hardships and ill-feelings.  I can't believe Cardinal O'Connor
can hail Columbus as a hero solely because he brought Xianity to the New
World.  I'm sure the Indians loved having guys with guns tell them who the
"real" god is.

> 
>>>> WHat if Jesus tells 'em to kill people (or drink cyanide cool-aide)
>>>
>>>BUT, He would not do so.
>> 
>> Evidence of Mr Marshall's Jesus hotline.
>
>Thank you.
> 
	Of course he wouldn't do so.  Any act of evil perpetrated by Xians
just shows that they weren't "real" Xians.  Everybody knows real Xians are
incapable of being confused, ignorant, sexually deviant, or sadistic.

>>>> As I suspected, you missed the point; all of them are suspect, unless you have
>>>> original manuscripts and can read Greek Aramaic and Hebrew. Even then, all of 
>>>> the Gospels were written a minimum of 50-100 yrs after the time of Jesus,
>>>> even by christian reconings, some (Luke for ex.) were not even present in
>>>> Israel at the time. If we look at the actual manuscripts we have, none are 
>>>> written within 300 years of the time of Jesus.
>>>> Actually, the least suspect records we have of early christianity are the dead 
>>>> sea scrolls, which paint a very different picture of early christians than
>>>> the accepted gospels do...
>>>
>>>Somewhat true...don't pass everything off as fiction though.
>> 
>> Somewhat true? What do you mean by that. Certainly not what I mean. Have you
>> done any research here, or are you just parroting me to skirt the issue?!
>
>Actually, I've heard some new news about Jesus being involved with the writing
>of some of the Dead Sea scrolls.  I'll keep checking up on that.
> 
	The bible has been translated innumerable times from a variety of
languages.  Anyone who has taken more than one language knows that there
are some expressions and words that just do not translate.  There is no
way to translate the concept of "fair-play" into French, for example.
The confusion over Moses having horns is another example.  Certainly there
are differences between today's bible and the original manuscripts.  Then
there's the problem of portions being removed by various popes because
the parts in question didn't fit into the papacy's ideology of the time.

>>>> Take a hike!
>>>
>>>Naaa...
>>
>>(what He's saying is "whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks")
>
>That's not what I'm saying.
> 
	No, Scott, it's "whip me, beat me, make me eat meat on friday"

>>>-- 
>>>Evan Marshall                            ************************************
>>>University of Northern Iowa              *           BANG THE DRUM          *
>>>                                         *       Let Your Freedom Ring      *
>>>marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu             ************************************
>> 
>> What an ironic .sig
>
>You think so?
> 
	Yep we do, slave.

>> You are all Cthulhu food!!!!!!!
>> -Scott
>> 
>
>We'll know who's right in the end.  Every knee shall bow before the Lord!
>
>Evan
	Not even if he broke my knee with his divine fist.  Any god who can
 behave as immaturely as outlined in the Old Testament deserves nothing but
my scorn.

Ray

Bow?  Me bow?  Yeah, right.
Newsgroups: alt.satanism