"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vsu60v89isl5es6mqrqsf66sgv59didstv at 4ax.com...
>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >>>It is relevant because if they understood the words in the book,
> >>>they would want the God of Israel which the book describes...
> >>Why is that necessarily so?
> >Because for an atheist which by definition believes in no gods, to
> >come to the realization that there is indeed one God, it would
> >require an "about face".
>> But that realization is not necessary to understanding the Bible. It
> IS possibly to treat the Bible as a description of a mythology, to
> understand it completely (in the intellectual sense), and yet reject
> the fundamental claims that make it true.
>> >If they came to this reversal and
> >understood Genesis 1:1 they would see the entire rest of the bible
> >from a new perspective and new understanding.
>> It is perfectly possible to look at the Bible from that perspective
> merely by *hypothetically* accepting Genesis 1:1, and then rejecting
> the hypothesis after having determined that the resulting
> understanding does not motivate them (personally) to accept the Bible
> as fundamental truth.
>> >Well, if one doesn't have the attitude Jesus taught us to have in
> >The Lord's Prayer i.e. "thy will be done" (not my will be done), can
> >it not be said that one is actually a slave of sin?
>> It can be said, but some people don't believe it.
>> >The whole point of being forgiven and under the blood of Jesus is to
> >be freed from sin. Thus a believer has more "free will" than a
> >non-believer who is captured by the devil and is enslaved by sin.
>> No, because the slavery of sin has little to do with the slavery or
> freedom of will.
>> >Folks in denial say "there is no such thing as sin because sin
> >requires that one believe in a god that one sins against".
>> But they can be perfectly aware and understanding of the consequences
> promised by the Bible if it should happen that they are wrong.
Every single one of your objections was wrong, lojbab, but now we have a
fresh new perspective for why: fat.
Being a 400 pounder confirms that you're a fathead, which makes it obvious
why your "logic" was fathead logic.
There could be other explanations. After all, there are some skinny jews,
like Alan Dershowitz, who could spend two millennia in Hell and still not
So it appears that we need to add one more snivel rights group to our
collection of uneducables: porkers.
btw, what percentage of the population are porkers, and how many members are
there to the National Association for the Advancement of Porkers? When do
you expect the federal funding to come rolling in? Will you spend it on
education, or food? Is it your goal to double the condition that guarantees
you an entitlement to 800 pounds, thus proving that federal funding is
required, enabling the feds to quintuple NAAP funds? Or will your goal be
only 600 pounds (an even more achievable "solution")?