Rotflmao!!!!

Ruined !!!

I guess I will just cut them off above the scorch marks, and turn them into shorts.

Oh look. Another mythology fanboy on a recruitment drive. Time to fire up the ordnance again, mission code 2-1-Zebra ...

Hi pal!

Don't bother with synthetic ingratiation, it merely makes your output all the more annoying ...

I appreciate the fact that you are taking your time to read this mail. Please I want you to take everything discussed in it seriously, because this is an issue that comes from the depth of my heart which I feel pressed to share with you.

Along with several million other sanctimonious panhandlers queueing up to sell me their snake oil ...

It’s about your life and the after-life, where you stand with God.

When these merely asserted entities enjoy something resembling rigorous support, I'll take notice. More on the relevant underlying concepts applicable here in a moment.

There’s no question about the fact that every human on earth is born into a world of troubles caused by sin

Poppycock."Sin" is a fiction, one invented by enforcers of conformity to doctrine to keep the plebs in their place. I don't care what your favourite mythology asserts on this matter, blind assertions are all that your mythology has to offer. "Sin" is no more real than the six foot cockroach I saw in hospital while my brain was being cooked at 104°F by meningococcal meningitis. It's an imaginary offence against an imaginary cartoon magic man.

Even if we accept the ludicrous assertions in Genesis about the origin of humans, assertions that were regally flushed down the toilet the moment palaeontologists got to work, the requisite fairy tale is a crock of shit even as a supposed "ethical fable", because if its assertions are actually true, this makes your magic man a sick, twisted Svengali. I'll see if you can work this out from first principles yourself, before providing the requisite schooling.

and we continue in sin just as we met it

Crap. See above.

consequently this has continued to cause untold hardship and injustice in the world and has given the devil a hold on everyone.

Again, crap. I no more treat your cartoon lava troll as real, than I do your cartoon magic man in the sky.

Furthermore, I have numerous cogent reasons for rejecting your farcical view of the human condition. I may expound more on this later.

Fortunately, in spite of the fact that we all have gone astray from God

I and the other people here who paid attention in class, have been waiting for just ONE mythology fanboy to present genuine evidence for his cartoon magic man, instead of the fatuous regurgitation of unsupported mythological assertions and the peddling of infantile apologetic fabrications, that sadly is the stock in trade of your ilk, one pursued with a ludicrous level of fervour by Abrahamic mythology fanboys in particular. Indeed, the mere fact that your cartoon magic man, if it exists, keeps sending intellectual barrel scrapings to present its purported "message" here, I regard as a compelling reason to treat your cartoon magic man as imaginary.

Indeed, the entire human species has been waiting for at least 5,000 years, for mythology fanboys of assorted species, to present something better than "my mythology says so, therefore it's true" as purported "evidence" for their various asserted magic entities. That, and, of course, a willingness to subject any divergent thought to homicidal repression, which seems to be terminally endemic to the various brands of Abrahamic mythology fanboyism in particular. Indeed, I'm reminded that the dictum "kill all who do not conform" is stated explicitly in at least three places in your mythology, and history has documented the willingness of fanboys thereof to act in accord therewith.

God still looked for a way to reconcile us to Himself.

I'm still waiting for this entity to be something other than merely asserted to exist.

Atonement of blood was needed for this reconciliation because without the shedding of blood, there couldn’t be forgiveness of sins.

Now that's an extraordinary assertion in need of extraordinary evidential support. Though since I regard the fatuous "sin" concept as null and void, dismissing this fantasetic assertion becomes effortless.

That is why Jesus laid down his life by His death on the cross.

Again, merely asserted to have happened in the pages of your mythology. Since your mythology also contains within its pages, assertions that are not merely known to be wrong, but fatuous and absurd, I regard said mythology as incompetent to provide genuine information even about elementary matters, let alone serious or difficult questions.

You might want to ask “why Jesus?”

Except that outside the pages of your mythology, scant mention is made of this character. Of course, I recognise that mythology isn't written in a vacuum, Bart Ehrman is one scholar who in particular recognises this, and regards a human character filling the role as having existed, without validating any of the supernaturalist nonsense woven around said human character. I'm minded to think more in terms of a composite.

it had to be Jesus because His blood was pure and without blemish. He was sinless.

You really do have trouble with blind assertions, don't you?

I'll provide the requisite schooling later.

Only His blood could accomplish what the blood of rams and bulls could not do.

Wait ... you're now asserting by implication that livestock are "tainted" by your fictitious "sin"?

This is an interesting variation on the theme I've not seen before.

Which, by, implication, would also extend to the rest of the biosphere?

I'm going to have a lot of fun seeing you cook up some apologetic garbage, to try and prop up the notion that an amoeba "commits sin".

Now that the work of salvation has been perfected by Jesus

Again, you really do have trouble with blind assertions, don't you?

all you need to do is repent, confess and forsake your sins, admit Jesus into your life and believe in Him.

You mean the way Jeffrey Dahmer did? So you're in effect asserting that I can cut up and eat several young boys, but all I have to do to get a gold ticket to your magic man's North Korea in the sky, is make the right noises? While the young boys I cut up and ate are denied entry, presumably because they didn't get the chance to make the right noises before I cut them up and ate them?

You really do have a strange vision of the future, don't you?

You then become a child of God and you have eternal life in you.

So yiour magic man hands out gold entry tickets to cannibal serial killers that make the right noises, but not to the victims thereof?

Again, what a strange vision of the future you have.

It is written “as many that received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons (daughters) of God, even to them that believe on His name” John 1:12.

What part of "this is merely asserted in your mythology" do you not understand?

Another portion of scripture says all that believe in the Lord will never be ashamed.

Well you're certainly shameless at parading your inadequacies here ...

I ‘ld also want you to know that the scripture says it’s only through Jesus that we can reach the throne of God. John 14:6.

Yawn ... you really do need schooling about this blind assertion business, don't you?

You can look up the Bible for yourself.

I have. It was tedious and funereal in tone across the entire 1,200 pages or so, except for the bits involving genocide and sex trafficking of underage girls, which were repulsive.

The Bible goes further to say that “he that believes in the Son (Jesus) has everlasting life, and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” John 3:36.

Once again, you're in desperate need of schooling about this blind assertions business ...

So that you can escape the tribulation and destruction that shall come at the end of the world and the eternal damnation after this life. You need to surrender your life to Christ.

What about the billions of human beings that pre-dated your "Christ", in some cases by around 150,000 years or so? Did they all get shoved in the cosmic pizza oven?

No matter how wicked or bad you think your sins are, He said he will forgive you.

Ah, we're back to Dahmer again ...

I counsel you, my dear friend, to repent today so that you may have eternal life with Christ.
If you have decided to give repent and give your life to Christ, please pray this short prayer.

I won't bother, because I've seen sanctimonious panhandling of this sort before, some of it dispensed by "pastors" who went on to feature on TV news after being arrested for playing "hide the sausage" with 12 year old girls, one of your so-called" sins" that every one of the atheists here regards as anathema and deserving of a long prison sentence. Which we regard as such without needing your cartoon magic man to lend a hand.

Welcome aboard. You are now a child of God. Please locate a bible-believing fellowship or church and worship there with other children of God.

Please pray and ask God to direct you to a good Bible-believing church where you can grow in the Spirit

Apart from the fact that the words "bible believing", are known dog-whistle terms for the sort of fundagelicals I'm happy to be separated from by a large ocean, and point to you being a particularly repellent species of mythology fanboy as a corollary, we now come to that matter of your problems with blind assertions, all of which stem from your demonstrable ignorance of the proper rules of discourse. Which I shall now introduce you to. As you are, like so many of your mythology fanboy ilk, too indolent, too smug, self-satisfied and complacent to bother searching for my relevant past output here, I shall repeat the relevant output for your benefit below, viz:

Item one. If you want me to respect bad ideas, then this is NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. I don't care how attached you are to said bad ideas, I will treat them the same way I treat every other bad idea I come across, namely, by subjecting it to whatever bombardment I decide is appropriate, with whatever discoursive artillery I choose to deploy. If you don't like this, then tough. And I'm now going to tell you the reasons why I take this approach. Starting with:

Item two. Thanks to my background, I've become aware of the proper rules of discourse, and their application, which are understood to be in operation in every properly constituted, rigorous academic discipline. These are, in a nutshell:

[1] Assertions, when first presented, possess the status "truth value unknown. There are NO exceptions to this rule.

[2] The epistemological deficit in [1] above, is remedied only by subjecting said assertions to proper test. Only by this means, can we determine if an assertion presented is true or false.

[3] In the absence of said proper test, an assertion retains its "truth value unknown" status, and as a corollary, may safely be discarded until said proper test is conducted, and said epistemological deficit is remedied.

[4] Assertions found via proper test to be false, are discarded except for pedagogical purposes. Assertions found to be true, on the other hand, become the basis for a body of proper, substantive knowledge.

[5] As a corollary of [4], a proper test of an assertion, is a test capable of falsifying that assertion. if the test cannot do this, it fails to be a proper test. In short, proper tests are tests to destruction.

[6] As a corollary of [5], assertions surviving proper tests, and emerging with the status of "true", despite ruthless attempts to destroy them, can be considered from that point on to be rigorous and robust postulates.

Quite simply, the above rules of discourse, and their ruthless application, are the only way to weed out bad ideas, before those ideas not only pollute the arena of discourse, but start exerting malign influence beyond that arena. Since those of us who paid attention in class, are aware of the existence of a large body of historical data, informing us what happens when bad ideas are allowed to fester unchecked, we regard the extirpation thereof as a public duty. Not least because that historical data informs us, that all too often, persistence of bad ideas leads to the premature extirpation of good people. The above rules of discourse have been demonstrated time and again, in rigorous disciplines, to possess unsurpassed utility value in this respect, and as a corollary, those who wish to abandon the above rules of discourse, in order to give free rein to their favourite collections of bad ideas, I and others here regard with well-deserved suspicion. All too frequently, the observational data available tells myself and others here, that those who seek to exempt their assertions from the above provisions, do so for duplicitous reasons.

Item three. Since, as a corollary of the application of the above rules of discourse to assertions, it is possible for those exercising the relevant diligence to change their views, with respect to the soundness or validity of a given postulate, several appropriate maxims arise therefrom, the first of these being you are not your ideas. Several of us here, will happily admit that there were ideas we regarded as unassailably correct in our youth, but now regard as an error-laden product of (at times unavoidable) insufficient learning. We moved through the spectrum of ideas, ultimately, by applying the above rules of discourse, and discarding bad ideas that failed appropriate proper test, even if we did not consciously know at the time that we were doing this. The whole point of my exposition here, is to make that process we followed explicit, and to bring it into the spotlight, so that there is no ambiguity about the nature of our epistemological journey.

Other relevant maxims arise as a corollary of the foregoing, among which a particular favourite of mine, is bad ideas exist to be destroyed. Preferably before they end up destroying good people (see my brief allusion to the relevant historical data above). It's precisely because we recognise the power of bad ideas to exert a malign influence in the wider world, particularly if those bad ideas are chosen as a basis for policy, that we regard ruthless bombardment of bad ideas in the arena of discourse as a public duty. The diligent do not have to dig deep for spectacular illustrative examples of the principle just espoused.

Item four. This is the part where I'm probably going to cause the most offence, to those with the relevant synthetic sensibilities, but again, in the interests of rigour and robustness of ideas, I don't care. Indeed, my view is that if you haven't offended at least some purveyors of bad ideas whilst destroying their nonsense, then you've been less than diligent at that task. Bad ideas, by their very nature, deserve scorn, ridicule, satirical lampooning and the rest of it. Classical Greek civilisation was the first to exhibit explicit recognition of this essential notion, and the literature of that era is replete with the subjection of bad ideas, and the purveyors thereof, to ruthless dissection, not merely from the standpoint of serious consideration of the merit of ideas, but from the standpoint of comedy. Indeed, in the hands of people such as Aristophanes, comedy was a highly effective discoursive weapon, brought to bear upon bad ideas, and used with lethal effect to run them through with the stiletto of refutation. The provenance of satire as a discoursive test, in skilled hands, is pretty much impeccable, and those who paid attention in class, will recognise satire as simply the age-old business, again bestowed upon us by Classical Greece, of reductio ad absurdum, translated into the dramatic sphere. As a corollary, those who exhibit synthetic "offence" at the deployment of such tried and trusted techniques, frequently provide observational data to the effect that their revulsion is driven by mendacity.

And at this point, I'm going to be utterly scathing about the business of "tone policing", an issue I've addressed here in the past, but which is apposite to revisit here, given the manner in which 'respect' was introduced into the relevant past thread. Quite simply, it doesn't matter what invective is deployed by whoever chooses to do so, first because what actually counts in discourse, is the rigour and robustness of one's ideas, regardless of their mode of presentation, and second, some of the nonsense that has been served up here by the usual suspects, is utterly deserving of whatever contempt, scorn and derision the veterans can muster to signal their displeasure at seeing said nonsense being vomited forth into the arena of discourse. If you post nonsensical drivel, expect it to be dismantled with gleeful savagery. Whingeing and bleating about post style, as a means of evading addressing post content, is a familiar act of duplicity we've seen in operation here often enough to recognise in our sleep, and resort to this particular brand of discoursive evasion will simply earn you even more scorn and derision than your original bad ideas.

Think of this place as the blast furnace into which ideas are tossed, to see which of said ideas shrivel to nothingness in the searing heat, and you will be equipped by this approach, to understand the modus operandi here. Don't expect us to lower our standards in order to give garbage a free pass, just because you treat that garbage as "sacred".

And with that, I'll now turn my attention to what has passed before, and see what bad ideas are to be subjected to the discoursive Atomic Annie.