XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Gerard Greeley wrote:   
      
      [same old slander]   
      
      Since you won't discuss the issue -- preferring instead to repeat the   
   same old litany of misleading half-truths -- let's go back into the old   
   archives.   
      
   Subject: Re: The non-Evidence Question (was Re: The rock question!   
   Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:55:44 -0600   
   From: Ken Smith    
   Organization: MindSpring Enterprises   
   Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism   
      
   "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:   
      
   > Thomas P. wrote:   
   > > Louis Kuhelj wrote:   
   > >> Al Klein wrote:   
   > >>> Louis Kuhelj wrote:   
   > >>>> Ken Smith wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>> There is one thing that appears certain -- that Christians will use the   
   > >>>>> "worship my god or he'll kick your ass" argument.  Let's see if you can   
   > >>>>> explain why we should kiss Jesus' ass, but not Hank's ...   
   >   
   > >>>> God is not in the ass kicking business.   
   >   
   > >>> What do you call the threat of eternally burning in hell, then?   
   >   
   > >> About the same as I call a threat of getting killed if I insist on jumping   
   > >> from the Golden Gate bridge.  Only a fool would believe that he would not   
   > >> suffer any bodily injury by doing so.  Only an idiot would insist that his   
   > >> decision to jump had nothing to do with the resulting death/injury and   
   > >> that it was God, who created gravity, that is to blame for the injuries or   
   > >> death under such circumstances.   
   >   
   > > Obviously god made suffering possible.   
   >   
   > God also gave man instructions which, if followed, would have prevented all   
   > suffering.   
      
     So, why don't *you* obey these instructions?  Why is it that *you*   
   can't trade your sinful life of alcohol-impaired and deceitful fornication   
   for guilt-free sex within the sanctioned bounds of holy matrimony?   
      
     You mean, your god won't help you in this matter?   (Gee, what a--   
   er-- surprise.)   
      
     You have told us that the "responsibilities" involved in marriage are   
   somehow to onerous for you to bear (and us heathen with successful   
   marriages are understandably mystified as to what they might be), but   
   it would seem to me that if God says something, you ought to make a   
   passable effort to comply.  So, what are those responsibilities you are   
   so afraid of assuming?  Fidelity?  Honesty?  Candor?  Taking out the   
   trash?   
     It's a long post, but it's a delightfully funny one -- I'm still waiting for   
   an answer to my questions, amid all the bland and tiresome threats of   
   immolation from your invisible sky-daddy.   
      
     [Our biggest dispute has to do with whether your holy Babble is the   
   word of man, as opposed to God.  As you have produceed no shred   
   of credible evidence, much less enough evidence to reasonably allow   
   us to conclude that your Babble is not of strictly human origin, we are   
   constrained to dismiss you as a net-kook.]   
      
   > But man disobeyed God's instructions, and now blames God for all   
   > his suffering.  I trust that you can all see the folly of that.   
      
     I don't "blame God for all my suffering" but rather, do hold your god   
   accountable for his failure to walk his talk.  If I am to be liable for sins   
   of omission, then in equity, so should your god.  And "justice delayed   
   is justice denied."   
      
     Money talks, bullshit walks.  And your god can take a hike.   
      
       ---------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Subject: Ted Admits He's Irresponsible (was Re: Ken Smith Lies (or else can't   
        read, one)   
   Date: 18 May 2002 12:01:14 GMT   
   From: Ken Smith    
   Organization: Concentric Internet Services   
   Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-ch   
   pel,alt.atheism   
      
   "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:   
      
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > >> Ken Smith wrote:   
   > >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > >>>> Ken Smith wrote:   
   > >>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > >>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>> Now for a Christian, it would be virtous to remain celibate outside   
   > >>>>>>>> of marriage -- but then I've never claimed to be the most virtuous   
   > >>>>>>>> of Christians.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>> When was the last time?  Would you believe last night?  Well,   
   > >>>>>>>> almost, but not quite.  Probably could have, if I had put forth a   
   > >>>>>>>> little more effort.  But at my age, the feeling sometimes seems to   
   > >>>>>>>> be "why bother?".   
   >   
   > >>>>>> Ken, you bloody drongo, you.  My reluctance wasn't due to any   
   > >>>>>> inability to perform,   
   >   
   > >>>>> "But at my age" was *your* tacit admission to that effect.   
   >   
   > >>>> Alluding to the fact that I am no longer driven exclusively by hormones   
   > >>>> as I was back when I was 20.   
   >   
   > >>> Either you have lost interest and/or capacity, or you haven't.   
   >   
   > >> Neither.  Actually, capacity might be somewhat diminished from when I was,   
   > >> say, 20 in that I don't rebound for an extra round or two like I used to,   
   > >> but for the initial event, it's still there.  But for me, there is another   
   > >> consideration: inclination, based upon a desire to remain true to God's   
   > >> commandments.  (One thing I have found, however is that inclination seems   
   > >> to be directly proportional to the amount of brewskies imbibed   
   >   
   > > I see.  The inclination to remain true to God's commandments is a direct   
   > > function of how many brews you've downed.   
   >   
   > No, no, no!!!  You bloody drongo!!!  I'm talking about the inclination to   
   > engage in something CONTRARY to God's Word.   
      
     We know it was a Freudian slip ... but it's still a damn funny one. :)   
      
   > > Thus, it would follow that the nightly pilgrimages to the hotel bar are   
   > > *spiritual* in nature.   
   >   
   > Liar.   
   >   
   > > You can only be a faithful Christian when you're stone drunk. :)   
   >   
   > Liar.   
      
     It is a logical (and hilarious) deduction, based on your admissions.  If   
   your inclination to remain faithful is high and your ability to fornicate is   
   diminished while you're stone drunk, and by your own admission, you   
   are a fornicator under other circumstances, the conclusion is valid.   
      
     Smile, take your lumps, and chug another VB. :)   
      
   > >> -- which also seems to have an inverse relationship on the ability to   
   > >> perform -- though in my case, with the amounts I imbibe, it doesn't become   
   > >> a serious issue.)   
   >   
   > > As the great John Candy once said, "Drinking is about algebraic ratios.   
   > > It's not that you had too much to drink; it's just that you're just too   
   > > skinny!"   
   >   
   > And John Candy died of what, exactly?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)