Gospel of Thomas dating
Doug
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/gthomas.html
4.How old IS the GTh itself?
If we have Greek mss with fragments of Gth that can be dated to pre-200
AD, then clearly the GTh must be at least that old. But some highly
visible minority (i.e. the Jesus Seminar) have claimed that it can be
dated to 50-60ad, BEFORE the canonical gospels, so we need to see
exactly what evidence exists by which to date the Gth.
In other words, do we have any HARD evidence by which to date GTh so
early?
1."The only firm evidence for dating this document is its earliest Greek
fragments (P. Oxy. 1), which was written no later than about A.D. 200."
(TJQ:49)
2."The first reference to the document by name occurs no earlier than
Hippolytus, who was writing between A.D. 222 and 235." (TJQ:49)
3.The author of Gth shows a decided dependence on the canonical Gospels
(see below for the evidence), demonstrating a later date for its
composition than they.
The scholarly community is generally (apart from the Jesus Seminar
minority) in agreement as to a mid-2nd century date:
But how early that Gospel was composed is debated. Although some seek to
place its origins in the first century, the view that it was actually
composed near the middle of the second century (ca. A.D. 140) is more
commonly held. [RNC:11]
Hultgren (op.cit.) lists the "early-daters" as Koester, S. Davies,
Cameron; and for the majority view Guillaumont, Puech, Cullmann,
Quispel, R. McL. Wilson, Gartner, Frend, Fieger, Hengel.
The early-daters are all closely associated with two schools: Claremont
and Harvard (homes of Koester and Robinson). All of these early daters
are either colleagues or students of these (with the exception of
Crossan).
Richard Hayes, a non-evangelical teaching at Duke, wrote an article
demonstrating how the Jesus Seminar did NOT represent a cross-section or
consensus view of non-evangelical scholarship in "The Corrected Jesus",
First Things 43 (1994). He called the seminar's dating of GTh "an
extraordinarily early dating, " a highly controversial claim," and a
"shaky element in their methodological foundation." (cited by Bock, in
JUF:90).
And Blomberg sums it up thus: "In other words, the document may have
first been written as early as about A.D. 150, but no actual evidence
permits us to push that date a century earlier as the Jesus Seminar
does." [JUF:23]
[It should be mentioned that an important, specialist work on the Syrian
area, where GTh was possibly written, argues that GTh is dependent on
Tatian's Diatessaron, which would dates it after 180ad--see H.J.W.
Drijvers, in "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity",
The Second Century, 2 (1982), pp.157-175.]
So, we get a range of 150-180ad for its composition. The implication of
this, obviously, is that at such a date it CANNOT be chronologically
prior to the canonical gospels--all of which were in their final form
LONG BEFORE this date.
Rang...@concentric.net
> Here's a definite word on the dating of the "Gospel of Thomas":
Without Crossan's rebuttal? It may be a definitive statement of your
side's position, but that is only half the story.
What I found most illuminating is that Miller was using the same kind
of arguments I use to discredit the notion that the four canonical gospels
were independent eyewitness accounts -- and you didn't say one word
in protest. Knowing your abominable lack of intellectual integrity, this
fact does not surprise me one bit.
Ron S.
Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38E6AE46...@pacbell.net...
> Here's a definite word on the dating of the "Gospel of Thomas":
>
Doug
> Knowing your abominable lack of intellectual integrity, this
> fact does not surprise me one bit.
I realize that you've now got cause to be bitter. After all, I exposed
the fact you are not a lawyer to your cronies who you duped.
Jason Steiner
He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
jason
--
"Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft."
Doug
> He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
practice law in Colorado.
Doug
> He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
Actually, I don't think it's a bad thing that he's not practicing. It
may be the best thing for all involved.
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
>
> > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
>
> practice law in Colorado.
Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
and more time being happy.
Rang...@concentric.net
> Rang...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > Knowing your abominable lack of intellectual integrity, this
> > fact does not surprise me one bit.
>
> I realize that you've now got cause to be bitter.
Bitter ... at you? Don't flatter yourself. More like "amused."
You are the embodiment of everything I see that is wrong with
Christianity. You are completely devoid of scruples, and unlike
Bob Larson, aren't doing what you have to to keep a profitable
business going. You're neglecting your wife and family to pursue
a pointless obsession.
At least, we can respect and in a sense even admire Bob. (He
is, after all, not just your average con-man; he has the tools, and
he has the talent.) You, on the other hand, are quite a different
story.
> After all, I exposed
> the fact you are not a lawyer to your cronies who you duped.
No one has been "duped," and it's not relevant here, anyway.
I have demonstrated my technical proficiency in the law, and if
I took a position that was way off base, veteran barristers like
Deana are out there to kibbutz.
Rang...@concentric.net
> Jason Steiner wrote:
>
> > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
>
> LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> practice law in Colorado.
As some of the regulars on this NG already know, that pretty much
sums it up. The dispute is in fact over a matter of principle.
Rang...@concentric.net
> Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> > > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> >
> > LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> > practice law in Colorado.
>
> Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> and more time being happy.
I am beginning to think his wife has driven him to this. I mean, with
all he supposedly has going on in his life, he prefers wasting his time
jawing with us over how many angels there are standing on the head
of a pin. Four(?) kids, a wife, a job, seminary, and church ought to
take up more time than he has.
Lib...@freedomfromsin.org
Not if you're a pathological liar.
Jason Steiner
He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
Where else is he going to go? The stuff he gets at church and seminary
is processed like Velveeta cheese, and about as satisfying. I'm sure
his wife is a sweet person, but I doubt intellectual discourse is one
of her charms. And well, the kids are kids.
Doug, I promise, I'm going to do my best to make this easy for you.
I won't even say "I told you so". Think of it. You'll even be able to
indulge your Rand fetish wholeheartedly! Not a whole lot better, but
it's a step toward the master himself, Nietzsche.
Doug
> He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
Well, sorta.
Right now I'm taking a class called "Christian Worldview" at seminary.
In this class we examine the alternative worldviews and compare them to
Christianity. From my perspective, you all are homework for me. Some of
the best papers that I've written at seminary have been in response to
my dialog with the people on USENET. It's gotten me to research my faith
and I've grown much more convinced of the truth of the Gospel the more I
hear of the alternatives.
> Where else is he going to go? The stuff he gets at church and seminary
> is processed like Velveeta cheese, and about as satisfying.
I've had a mixed bag at seminary. Some of the professors are downright
brilliant and others are "pastoral." I like the intellectual stimulation
I get there. This group seems to have more or less the same old answers.
Naturalism is really boring as a worldview, but with the newagers and
such that hang around here at least there's a mixture of views.
Actually this quarter I'm doing a paper on Stephen Hawking based on some
of the discussions I've had here. I'm calling it "The God-Talk of
Stephen Hawking." Anyone want to help me get another A?
> I'm sure
> his wife is a sweet person, but I doubt intellectual discourse is one
> of her charms. And well, the kids are kids.
They are at the age where they ask some pretty cool questions and they
are critical thinkers who don't accept easy answers. I only wish that
everyone had the open mind that kids do.
> Doug, I promise, I'm going to do my best to make this easy for you.
> I won't even say "I told you so". Think of it. You'll even be able to
> indulge your Rand fetish wholeheartedly! Not a whole lot better, but
> it's a step toward the master himself, Nietzsche.
Nihlism is pointless.
Doug
Doug
> No one has been "duped," and it's not relevant here, anyway.
> I have demonstrated my technical proficiency in the law, and if
> I took a position that was way off base, veteran barristers like
> Deana are out there to kibbutz.
And in Ken's fantasy world the fox watches the henhouse.
Doug
> Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> and more time being happy.
Hasn't watching Ken squirm been entertaining for everyone?
Rang...@concentric.net
ROTFLMAO!!!
Tiamat, how he hates me! I don't think even Bob Larson hates
me THAT much....
Rang...@concentric.net
> Jason Steiner wrote:
>
> > He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
>
> Well, sorta.
>
> Right now I'm taking a class called "Christian Worldview" at seminary.
> In this class we examine the alternative worldviews and compare them to
> Christianity. From my perspective, you all are homework for me. Some of
> the best papers that I've written at seminary have been in response to
> my dialog with the people on USENET.
... I'd hate to see their "C" students. :)
Rang...@concentric.net
> And in Ken's fantasy world the fox watches the henhouse.
And in Doug's fantasy world, Jesus still lives. Kind of like Gandalf.
Doug
> Tiamat, how he hates me! I don't think even Bob Larson hates
> me THAT much....
I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
Rang...@concentric.net
And I'm convinced that Pastor Chuck is right about you....
Rang...@concentric.net
> Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Rang...@concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > > Tiamat, how he hates me! I don't think even Bob Larson hates
> > > me THAT much....
> >
> > I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
>
> Look at yourself, man. You're so intellectually bankrupt you're
> siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
Sure, he does. He has too much invested in his religion to give it
up.
What you suggest would break his mind.
Uh, not that you couldn't slip a five-iron in there already.... :)
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
>
> Well, sorta.
>
> Right now I'm taking a class called "Christian Worldview" at seminary.
Yup, pre-digested pap. I'll bet you don't have people from other
philosophies coming in to give their ideas in similar formats. That
would be a liberal education, and we all know those are of the devil.
Seminaries exist to keep otherwise intelligent people as far from
such a thing as possible.
> In this class we examine the alternative worldviews and compare
> them to Christianity. From my perspective, you all are homework for
> me. Some of the best papers that I've written at seminary have been
> in response to my dialog with the people on USENET. It's gotten me
> to research my faith and I've grown much more convinced of the
> truth of the Gospel the more I hear of the alternatives.
Yeah, you sound really convinced. You're not fooling anyone, Doug.
You're so damn convinced you have to resort to outright denial,
personal attacks, and incessant nervous laughter.
It's ok, Doug. I forgive you. Hell, I sympathize. I remember what
it's like. You have many other options where you are. But I won't
quit reminding you that it doesn't have to be that way.
> > Where else is he going to go? The stuff he gets at church and
> > seminary is processed like Velveeta cheese, and about as
> > satisfying.
>
> I've had a mixed bag at seminary. Some of the professors are
> downright brilliant and others are "pastoral." I like the
> intellectual stimulation I get there. This group seems to have more
> or less the same old answers. Naturalism is really boring as a
> worldview, but with the newagers and such that hang around here at
> least there's a mixture of views.
You don't even understand naturalism, so I'm not surprised you find
it boring. Be that as it may, even if it were boring, nobody said
the truth had to tickle your ears. The truth is the truth because it's
true, not because it's exciting.
> > Doug, I promise, I'm going to do my best to make this easy for you.
> > I won't even say "I told you so". Think of it. You'll even be able to
> > indulge your Rand fetish wholeheartedly! Not a whole lot better, but
> > it's a step toward the master himself, Nietzsche.
>
> Nihlism is pointless.
Great. Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist. Of course, nobody told you that
in your seminary. In fact, I'm betting they probably lied outright
to you. Chances are, you've never read more than a few paragraphs
of Nietzsche - if that - and it was taken out of context and
mistranslated. Try picking up one of Walter Kaufmann's translations
sometime, and reading it cover-to-cover. It's life-affirming stuff,
as is Rand, and no surprise, she stole most of her material from ol'
Friedrich. (Missing a lot of the good stuff though.)
You're welcome.
Jason Steiner
> Rang...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > Tiamat, how he hates me! I don't think even Bob Larson hates
> > me THAT much....
>
> I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
Look at yourself, man. You're so intellectually bankrupt you're
siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
Ron S.
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
news:8c8tmo$7kc$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
>
> jason
>
>
> --
> "Meine Unwissenheit verblüfft mich."
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >
> > jason
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Meine Unwissenheit verblüfft mich."
Pwonoun twoubles!
Jason Steiner
> > siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
>
> up. What you suggest would break his mind.
I disagree. Keeping on as he is will break his mind. He's already
cracking.
Giving up his investment will be hard, sure, but people with much
more invested have done it, and been happier for it. It's either that
or go mad. I think Doug's enough of a man to do it. If he wasn't, it
wouldn't be bothering him as much as it is.
Bob Wilson
> 1Ran...@concentric.net wrote:
> 1
> 1
> 1> Knowing your abominable lack of intellectual integrity, this
> 1> fact does not surprise me one bit.
> 1
> 1I realize that you've now got cause to be bitter. After all, I exposed
> 1the fact you are not a lawyer to your cronies who you duped.
> 1
> 1
Duped? Are you insane? (dumb questiom) Ken never duped anyone. I
simply assumed he was an attourney. The very first time I ever wrote
anyting about it in the ng, he quickly let me know what the situation
really was, in spite of the fact that it is a painful subject for him.
And he did it here in the newsgroup, not via private e-mail. And we
aren't cronies, either. I imagine that Ken's cronies are tad more
professional and intellectual than mine. I live in Waco, Tx. and I've
never met anyone from this ng. This Bob Larson business is just an
amusing pastime for me. You are deliberately trying to misrepersent what
occurred, and you should be ashamed.
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Bob Wilson
says...
> 1Doug wrote:
> 1
> 1> And in Ken's fantasy world the fox watches the henhouse.
> 1
> 1 And in Doug's fantasy world, Jesus still lives. Kind of like Gandalf.
Gandalf was a much better messiah than Jesus.
Bob Wilson
> 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1
> 1> He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> 1> actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> 1
> 1LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> 1practice law in Colorado.
Ken can move to Tx. and be admitted to the bar here whenever he likes.
Although I will admit that high moral standards would appear to be an
impediment to the actual practice of law, at least in Tex. (Louisiana,
too.)
Bob Wilson
> 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1
> 1> > Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1> >
> 1> > > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> 1> > > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> 1> >
> 1> > practice law in Colorado.
> 1> Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> 1> and more time being happy.
> 1
> 1 I am beginning to think his wife has driven him to this. I mean, with
> 1all he supposedly has going on in his life, he prefers wasting his time
> 1jawing with us over how many angels there are standing on the head
> 1of a pin. Four(?) kids, a wife, a job, seminary, and church ought to
> 1take up more time than he has.
I've been married 5 years, no children, and my wife alone takes up as
much extra time as I seem to have. Doug must be uninterested in his
family.
Bob Wilson
says...
> 1<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> 1> Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1> > Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 1> > > Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1> > >
> 1> > > > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too
> 1> > > > a bad thing.
> 1> > >
> 1> > > LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses
> 1> >
> 1> > Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> 1> > and more time being happy.
> 1>
> 1> I am beginning to think his wife has driven him to this. I mean,
> 1> his time jawing with us over how many angels there are standing on
> 1> the head of a pin. Four(?) kids, a wife, a job, seminary, and
> 1> church ought to take up more time than he has.
> 1
> 1He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
> 1
> 1Where else is he going to go? The stuff he gets at church and seminary
> 1is processed like Velveeta cheese, and about as satisfying. I'm sure
> 1his wife is a sweet person, but I doubt intellectual discourse is one
> 1of her charms. And well, the kids are kids.
> 1
> 1Doug, I promise, I'm going to do my best to make this easy for you.
> 1I won't even say "I told you so". Think of it. You'll even be able to
> 1indulge your Rand fetish wholeheartedly! Not a whole lot better, but
> 1it's a step toward the master himself, Nietzsche.
Jason, where and how does Kant figure in the philosophical universe? Or
simply vis a vis Nietzsche?
Bob Wilson
> 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1
> 1> He comes to us for intellectual stimulation.
> 1
> 1Well, sorta.
> 1
> 1Right now I'm taking a class called "Christian Worldview" at seminary.
> 1In this class we examine the alternative worldviews and compare them to
> 1Christianity. From my perspective, you all are homework for me. Some of
> 1the best papers that I've written at seminary have been in response to
> 1my dialog with the people on USENET. It's gotten me to research my faith
> 1and I've grown much more convinced of the truth of the Gospel the more I
> 1hear of the alternatives.
> 1
> 1> Where else is he going to go? The stuff he gets at church and seminary
> 1> is processed like Velveeta cheese, and about as satisfying.
> 1
> 1I've had a mixed bag at seminary. Some of the professors are downright
> 1brilliant and others are "pastoral." I like the intellectual stimulation
> 1I get there. This group seems to have more or less the same old answers.
> 1Naturalism is really boring as a worldview, but with the newagers and
> 1such that hang around here at least there's a mixture of views.
> 1
> 1Actually this quarter I'm doing a paper on Stephen Hawking based on some
> 1of the discussions I've had here. I'm calling it "The God-Talk of
> 1Stephen Hawking." Anyone want to help me get another A?
Why not simply insist that he's a born-again christian, as some of your
fellow cultists insist is the case about Einstien? Both Einstien and
Hawking are (were) athiests. Both however, in the tradition of European
physicists, sometimes speak (spoke) in poetic and metaphorical terms.
But you are wrong once again if you think that those guys mean "Jesus
Christ" whenever they say God.
Bob Wilson
> 1Maybe Ken's wife already is?
> 1
That's enough, Doug. Leave Ken's wife out of this. Try to conduct
yourself as a gentleman, or you'll be asked to leave.
Bob Wilson
> 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1
> 1> Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> 1> and more time being happy.
> 1
> 1
> 1
What are you babbling about now? I haven't noticed him 'squirm'. On the
contrary, he tells the truth even about painful personal matters that
aren't relevant here. Yet you refuse to EVER admit that you're wrong,
which is most of the time. The anti-intellectual contortions you perform
are mostly irritating rather than entertaining. The schadenfruede you
display here would be most unbecoming to a real christian, but since you
are a Dougist, I guess that it is at least consistent.
Bob Wilson
> 1Ran...@concentric.net wrote:
> 1
> 1> Tiamat, how he hates me! I don't think even Bob Larson hates
> 1> me THAT much....
> 1
> 1I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
> 1
All of this was prefigured in Sinclair Lewis' novel: Elmer Gantry.
Gantry is a lying dishonest con-man with no scruples. He rises to the
top 'o the heap in Evangelical Christianity. His college pal, who is a
morally upright and honest atheist, ends up as no more than a smalltime
lawyer of no great distinction. Just like Gantry vanquished his
opponents, Bob Larson has hurt Ken, because after all, he has God on his
side. Ken, you should leave that right-wing shithole of a state, and
move to a more civilized place, somewhere in New England. Bask in the
knowledge that you have done the right thing, but go somewhere where you
can make a living. Let Bob Larson and Doug hope and pray that there
won't really be a judgement day, because they would doubtless be the
first 2 to burn.
Doug
> Yup, pre-digested pap. I'll bet you don't have people from other
> philosophies coming in to give their ideas in similar formats. That
> would be a liberal education, and we all know those are of the devil.
In fact, we spend a large portion of the class examining the other
worldviews in great depth. How many secular universities examine the
claims of Christianity in a similar depth?
Doug
> You don't even understand naturalism, so I'm not surprised you find
> it boring.
What am I missing about naturalism, Jason? I'd like to get an A and if
I've missed something the teacher is likely to pick apart the paper so
if you can help...
> Be that as it may, even if it were boring, nobody said
> the truth had to tickle your ears.
No, but it has to account for the facts of life and naturalism falls
short in that arena.
> The truth is the truth because it's
> true, not because it's exciting.
Hey, that's my line.
Jason Steiner
>
> Jason, where and how does Kant figure in the philosophical
> universe? Or simply vis a vis Nietzsche?
Kant was an idealist. Nietzsche was not. Nietzsche's attacks on
idealists and transcendentalists - including Kant - are one of the
reasons he's mistakenly labeled a nihilist. Kant and other
enlightenment philosophers were so important in their time that it
seemed there was no alternative. If Nietzsche rejected them, he
must be embracing nihilism because there was nowhere else to go.
Of course, there was, but that's a post for another time.
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > Yup, pre-digested pap. I'll bet you don't have people from other
> > philosophies coming in to give their ideas in similar formats.
> > That would be a liberal education, and we all know those are of
> > the devil.
>
> In fact, we spend a large portion of the class examining the other
> worldviews in great depth.
No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be so ignorant. Having a
Christian teacher lead you by the nose through his interpretation of
other worldviews isn't studying them, much less studying them in
great depth.
You claim Nietzsche was a nihilist. What class did you read Nietzsche
for, Doug? What did you read? Would you care to post the paper you
wrote for your class on the subject? You know, the one you got an "A"
on? When I was in college they had us reading many of the great
Christian writers: Aquinas, Pascal, Erasmus, Luther, and others. And
that was in an undergraduate, non-liberal-arts program at a State
university.
You're getting an inferior education, Doug. The good news is that
you realize it, or you wouldn't be here. The bad news is you haven't
yet made up your mind to stop paying money for it.
Dr. Doom
>You claim Nietzsche was a nihilist.
He found that out when he met Nietzsche in Windsor (east of Detroit) after
being duped by Ken.
--
It is not fate that has led us to be what we are nor is it entirely choice, but
it is up to us to have faith that what we do is for the greater good. We must
believe in ourselves.
(Ghost Rider)
Remove the extra".aol.com" to reply
Meyahoo3
>actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
>
>jason
For most kristians, grubbing money any way you can is admirable, the more you
make, the greater you are a person.
Ron in Seattle
Doug
> No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be so ignorant. Having a
> Christian teacher lead you by the nose through his interpretation of
> other worldviews isn't studying them, much less studying them in
> great depth.
Heck, Jason. I'm only two weeks into the class. Cut me some slack.
I suspect that I know more about your worldview than you do about mine.
At least I realize your worldview is false and you don't.
Doug
> Kant was an idealist. Nietzsche was not. Nietzsche's attacks on
> idealists and transcendentalists - including Kant - are one of the
> reasons he's mistakenly labeled a nihilist.
This appears to be a common misconception, then.
> Kant and other
> enlightenment philosophers were so important in their time that it
> seemed there was no alternative. If Nietzsche rejected them, he
> must be embracing nihilism because there was nowhere else to go.
I think that nihlism is pointless.
If God is dead, what do you got left? Might makes right is all you have.
Doug
> All of this was prefigured in Sinclair Lewis' novel: Elmer Gantry.
> Gantry is a lying dishonest con-man with no scruples.
I'm surprised to see someone compare Ken to Elmer Gantry. I think it's a
decent comparison, though.
Doug
>
> In article <38E7C5EE...@pacbell.net>, jaco...@pacbell.net says...
> > 1Maybe Ken's wife already is?
> > 1
>
> That's enough, Doug. Leave Ken's wife out of this. Try to conduct
> yourself as a gentleman, or you'll be asked to leave.
LOL. Bob. Who's name is in the subject line of this thread?
Doug
> > 1Actually this quarter I'm doing a paper on Stephen Hawking based on some
> > 1of the discussions I've had here. I'm calling it "The God-Talk of
> > 1Stephen Hawking." Anyone want to help me get another A?
>
> Why not simply insist that he's a born-again christian, as some of your
> fellow cultists insist is the case about Einstien?
I don't believe you. Show me one Christian who claims that Einstein was
a born-again Christian. Please. I'd like believe you are telling me the
truth.
> Both Einstien and Hawking are (were) athiests.
Well, sort of. Not exactly. Both search(ed) long and hard to come up
with theoretical alternatives to theism that would rescue their dying
naturalism from the demands of a Living God. Neither really have
succeeded in removing God from the Creation event.
> Both however, in the tradition of European
> physicists, sometimes speak (spoke) in poetic and metaphorical terms.
My thesis is that they pour a different meaning into the word "god" than
Christians do. They try to force Christians into a "God of the gaps"
sort of theology. Trouble it that before 10^-43 seconds after creation
event their science all breaks down. Hawking has spent most of his
career trying to show that quantum mechanics removes the necessity for a
Creator. My thesis is that he has not succeeded.
> But you are wrong once again if you think that those guys mean "Jesus
> Christ" whenever they say God.
LOL. Do you always jump to such exaggerated conclusions? That's not my
thesis at all.
Doug
> > Nihlism is pointless.
>
> Great. Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist. Of course, nobody told you that
> in your seminary. In fact, I'm betting they probably lied outright
> to you.
Here's an interesting page on Nietzsche and nihlism...
Doug
> If you weren't wasting your time on your religion, you could be
> reading this stuff on your own. You know there are things called
> "libraries". With what you'd save by halting your so-called education
> now, you could put together quite an impressive library.
Naw. Nihlism is pointless. Why bother studying it?
Doug
> Duped? Are you insane? (dumb questiom) Ken never duped anyone. I
> simply assumed he was an attourney. The very first time I ever wrote
> anyting about it in the ng, he quickly let me know what the situation
> really was, in spite of the fact that it is a painful subject for him.
Actually, I was the one who pointed out that Ken wasn't an attorney. You
called me on the carpet and have yet to apologize for your false
assertions. You've simply turned it into an attack on me. So much for
atheistic humility.
Doug
> I disagree. Keeping on as he is will break his mind. He's already
> cracking.
>
> Giving up his investment will be hard, sure, but people with much
> more invested have done it, and been happier for it. It's either that
> or go mad. I think Doug's enough of a man to do it. If he wasn't, it
> wouldn't be bothering him as much as it is.
problem is you gotta offer me something better.
Naturalism just doesn't cut it. Doesn't answer lots of questions.
Doug
> > I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
>
> And I'm convinced that Pastor Chuck is right about you....
If nothing else, you are predictable.
Doug
> > I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
>
> Look at yourself, man. You're so intellectually bankrupt you're
> siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
It's just that Ken sues Larson and Larson wins. Makes you think, you
know. If Larson has smarter lawyers than Ken is for himself, then maybe
Larson deserves a break? He's already beat Ken, and all Ken can do is
strike back here in the newsgroup.
Deana Holmes
wrote:
>Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Jason Steiner wrote:
>>
>> > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
>> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
>>
>> LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
>> practice law in Colorado.
>
>Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
>and more time being happy.
No, for Doug, life is not good unless he isn't a vindictive creep to
someone, in this case Ken. Of course, he thinks all the rest of us
are unsaved slobs, destined for hellfire.
I know that's a warped way to live. Thankfully, I gave it up a decade
ago after I heard a pastor preach about how we needed to get the
reality of hell into our hearts. The consequent soul-searching that I
went through made me decide that I wanted nothing to do with a God who
was that vindictive. Kind of like our Doug.
Deana
mir...@xmission.com
Deana Holmes
>Maybe Ken's wife already is?
<rolls eyes> You really need to spend more time with your family,
Doug.
Deana Holmes
mir...@xmission.com
Rang...@concentric.net
Bob Wilson wrote:
> In article <38E78586...@concentric.net>, Rang...@concentric.net
> says...
> > 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> > 1
> > 1> Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 1> > Jason Steiner wrote:
> > 1> Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> > 1> and more time being happy.
> > 1
> > 1 I am beginning to think his wife has driven him to this. I mean, with
> > 1all he supposedly has going on in his life, he prefers wasting his time
> > 1jawing with us over how many angels there are standing on the head
> > 1of a pin. Four(?) kids, a wife, a job, seminary, and church ought to
> > 1take up more time than he has.
>
> I've been married 5 years, no children, and my wife alone takes up as
> much extra time as I seem to have.
My take exactly. If Doug was enrolled in an academic program of
any repute -- and you'll note that he still hasn't told us what seminary
he attends -- studying would eat up all of his free time, assuming that
he had his priorities screwed on straight.
> Doug must be uninterested in his family.
It does seem that way....
Rang...@concentric.net
> Jason Steiner wrote:
>
> > > I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
> >
> > Look at yourself, man. You're so intellectually bankrupt you're
> > siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
>
> It's just that Ken sues Larson and Larson wins.
Depends on how you look at it. If Larson had had half a brain, he
would have cut a deal long before the shit hit the fan.
> Makes you think, you know.
You? Think? That would be extraordinary. A first.
> If Larson has smarter lawyers than Ken is for himself, then maybe
> Larson deserves a break?
Bill Clinton has smarter lawyers than the both of us put together ...
does this mean that the First Pervert deserves a break?
> He's already beat Ken,
You mean, kind of like the way that Chuck Smith and his faithful
follower Joe Marino handed you your lunch? Nobody takes you
seriously any more, Doug. You're a Steve Winter-class crank, and
an embarrassment to Christianity.
I mean, you're so embarrassed that you won't even reveal which
"seminary" you attend.
My mistake was in overestimating the collective integrity of the
Christian community. With people like Doug in leadership, even
La Cosa Nostra would be embarrassed to be seen with 'em.
> and all Ken can do is strike back here in the newsgroup.
The game ain't over 'til it's over.
Rang...@concentric.net
> Rang...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > > I'm beggining to think that Larson may be right about you, Ken.
> >
> > And I'm convinced that Pastor Chuck is right about you....
>
> If nothing else, you are predictable.
Well, he sure kicked your ass. Even his laymen had their way with
you. Marino drove you into such a dither that you couldn't stand it.
Your pride was your undoing.
Rang...@concentric.net
> He's already beat Ken,
Considering the lack of available resources, I think we did a pretty
damn good job. Everybody knows, and a lot of people won't touch
der Begmeister with a 20-foot crucifix.
And it would seem that we have a lot of fans out there. Did anyone
see "God, the Devil, and Bob?" That devil looks awfully familiar.... :)
Rang...@concentric.net
> That's cheap, Doug. If you weren't a Christian, you wouldn't have
> to resort to such childishness. You'd have the truth on your side.
It's not about childishness. It's about pride.
Doug knows that a statement taken out of context is a pretext, and
despite the obvious analogy drawn by Bob W. between Gantry and
Larson, he has to play his petty little game. (The saddest part is that
he considers himself clever.)
Doug lashes out at anyone who has beaten him ... and he thirsts for
revenge. Joe Marino skewered him so thorougly that he couldn't see
straight, and he'll never let go of that grudge. Doug would even start
supporting Bob Larson despite what he knows, just because he hates
me more. Expect it to happen within a few weeks.
Doug doesn't stoop to these lows because he wants to. He does it
because he has to.
He could make a fine pastor ... of a Christian Identity church. How
he could ever meet the 'moral fitness' requirements of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 in
any other context, we will never know. Temperate? Self-controlled?
Respectable? Not quarrelsome? Having a good reputation with out-
siders? Puh-leeeze!
It's no wonder that he was kicked out of Calvary Chapel. :(
Jason Steiner
> > Christian teacher lead you by the nose through his interpretation
> > of other worldviews isn't studying them, much less studying them
> > in great depth.
>
> Heck, Jason. I'm only two weeks into the class. Cut me some slack.
If you weren't wasting your time on your religion, you could be
reading this stuff on your own. You know there are things called
"libraries". With what you'd save by halting your so-called education
now, you could put together quite an impressive library.
> I suspect that I know more about your worldview than you do about
> mine.
Considering your already demonstrated ignorance, you should avoid
putting money on that.
> At least I realize your worldview is false and you don't.
Cute. And completely insubstantial. You can do better. You want to
do better. Go ahead. It's ok.
Jason Steiner
> > idealists and transcendentalists - including Kant - are one of the
> > reasons he's mistakenly labeled a nihilist.
>
> This appears to be a common misconception, then.
Common among Christians and the ignorant. Not fit company for a
thinking man, Doug. But you know that already, which is why you
prefer to spend so much time here.
> > Kant and other enlightenment philosophers were so important in
> > their time that it seemed there was no alternative. If Nietzsche
> > rejected them, he must be embracing nihilism because there was
> > nowhere else to go.
>
> I think that nihlism is pointless.
>
> If God is dead, what do you got left? Might makes right is all you
> have.
The book doesn't end with "God is dead", Doug. If you'd read it for
yourself, you'd know that. And you'd have discovered that your
rhetorical question isn't as rhetorical as you've been lead to
believe.
Jason Steiner
> Bob Wilson wrote:
>
> > All of this was prefigured in Sinclair Lewis' novel: Elmer Gantry.
> > Gantry is a lying dishonest con-man with no scruples.
>
> I'm surprised to see someone compare Ken to Elmer Gantry. I think it's a
> decent comparison, though.
That's cheap, Doug. If you weren't a Christian, you wouldn't have
to resort to such childishness. You'd have the truth on your side.
jason
Jason Steiner
> > reading this stuff on your own. You know there are things called
> > "libraries". With what you'd save by halting your so-called education
> > now, you could put together quite an impressive library.
>
That's an evasion, for as you well know, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.
That's ok, Doug. I understand how hard it is. It's just your
cognitive dissonance getting the best of you again. Just remember, it
doesn't have to be this way. You can get better. And when you do,
you won't have to duck uncomfortable truths with silly evasions.
Jason Steiner
Honesty is better, Doug. And sometimes honesty means admitting
that you don't have the answer to everything, that you aren't
omniscient. If you still have questions, that's good. It means you
have work to do.
Just over two hundred years ago, many people had an answer to the
question of what caused lightning. It was the devil. But it wasn't
until someone admitted that he *didn't* have an answer that the truth
was discovered, the lightning rod was invented, and thousands of
churches were saved from burning to the ground.
Your response indicates that you want an answer just to have an
answer. Shame on you, Doug. You're better than that. You could be
a Benjamin Franklin, but you're choosing to huddle in your hut,
praying to your sky gods not to burn it down.
Jason Steiner
> >
> > siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
>
> know. If Larson has smarter lawyers than Ken is for himself, then maybe
> Larson deserves a break? He's already beat Ken, and all Ken can do is
> strike back here in the newsgroup.
Ah, the wicked should be judged on the quality of their lawyers.
That's right Christian of you, Doug. There's hope for you yet.
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >
> > Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
>
> someone, in this case Ken.
For Doug, life is not good, period. That's what happens when a man
with the ability to be rational finds himself locked in a belief
system that won't let him exercise his mind.
He's like a caged animal. The only amusement he gets is throwing his
shit at those outside of the cage. It's the only thing that makes his
miserable life even slightly bearable, but make no mistake, he's not
happy.
But he could be. The gate's open, Doug. Come on out.
Jason Steiner
Same thing.
> He could make a fine pastor ... of a Christian Identity church. How
> he could ever meet the 'moral fitness' requirements of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 in
> any other context, we will never know. Temperate? Self-controlled?
> Respectable? Not quarrelsome? Having a good reputation with out-
> siders? Puh-leeeze!
I prefer to believe it's a cry for help. He knows, deep down inside,
that he doesn't want to be a pastor. He knows it's untrue. But he
doesn't yet have the intestinal fortitude to make a clean break. So
he's doing everything he can to sabotage his "walk" without actually
giving up his faith.
> It's no wonder that he was kicked out of Calvary Chapel. :(
So far it seems to be working...
Rang...@concentric.net
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's not about childishness. It's about pride.
>
> Same thing.
Yes and no. Pride can be a positive thing if not taken to extremes.
If you have pride in your work, you will do better work. But when
it goes as far as it has with Doug, it is self-destructive.
> > He could make a fine pastor ... of a Christian Identity church. How
> > he could ever meet the 'moral fitness' requirements of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 in
> > any other context, we will never know. Temperate? Self-controlled?
> > Respectable? Not quarrelsome? Having a good reputation with out-
> > siders? Puh-leeeze!
>
> I prefer to believe it's a cry for help. He knows, deep down inside,
> that he doesn't want to be a pastor. He knows it's untrue. But he
> doesn't yet have the intestinal fortitude to make a clean break. So
> he's doing everything he can to sabotage his "walk" without actually
> giving up his faith.
I think you may be on to something. A cry for attention is usually a
cry for help, and he seems to be craving it here. And the people who
doubt the most are generally most likely to be uncomfortable with the
idea that others doubt, as well -- it confirms what they know in their
heart of hearts.
> > It's no wonder that he was kicked out of Calvary Chapel. :(
>
> So far it seems to be working...
The question, of course, is when he will admit it to himself. :)
Bob Wilson
> 1Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1
> 1> Yup, pre-digested pap. I'll bet you don't have people from other
> 1> philosophies coming in to give their ideas in similar formats. That
> 1> would be a liberal education, and we all know those are of the devil.
> 1
> 1In fact, we spend a large portion of the class examining the other
> 1worldviews in great depth. How many secular universities examine the
> 1claims of Christianity in a similar depth?
> 1
> 1
But isn't the underlying assumption: Christianity is right and all other
worldviews are wrong? An honest take on it would be to present all of
the material, and then let the student make up his own mind.
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Bob Wilson
says...
> 1Doug wrote:
> 1
> 1> Jason Steiner wrote:
> 1>
> 1> >
> 1> > Look at yourself, man. You're so intellectually bankrupt you're
> 1> > siding with Larson. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.
> 1>
> 1> It's just that Ken sues Larson and Larson wins.
> 1
> 1 Depends on how you look at it. If Larson had had half a brain, he
> 1would have cut a deal long before the shit hit the fan.
> 1
> 1> Makes you think, you know.
> 1
> 1 You? Think? That would be extraordinary. A first.
> 1
> 1> If Larson has smarter lawyers than Ken is for himself, then maybe
> 1> Larson deserves a break?
> 1
> 1 Bill Clinton has smarter lawyers than the both of us put together ...
> 1does this mean that the First Pervert deserves a break?
Maybe not for that reason, but yes, he deserves a break.
Bob Wilson
mir...@xmission.com says...
> 1On 2 Apr 2000 16:27:49 GMT, Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com>
> 1wrote:
> 1>>
> 1>> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> 1>>
> 1>> LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> 1>> practice law in Colorado.
> 1>
> 1>Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> 1>and more time being happy.
> 1
> 1No, for Doug, life is not good unless he isn't a vindictive creep to
> 1someone, in this case Ken. Of course, he thinks all the rest of us
> 1are unsaved slobs, destined for hellfire.
> 1
> 1I know that's a warped way to live. Thankfully, I gave it up a decade
> 1ago after I heard a pastor preach about how we needed to get the
> 1reality of hell into our hearts. The consequent soul-searching that I
> 1went through made me decide that I wanted nothing to do with a God who
> 1was that vindictive. Kind of like our Doug.
In that case, Doug is Godlike. A vindictive, anti-intellectual moron
with a cruel streak. Nelson Muntz grown up.
Rang...@concentric.net
> On 2 Apr 2000 16:27:49 GMT, Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com>
> wrote:
> >Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> >> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> >>
> >> LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> >> practice law in Colorado.
> >
> >Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> >and more time being happy.
>
> No, for Doug, life is not good unless he isn't a vindictive creep to
> someone, in this case Ken.
I can't imagine that life is all that good for him, even when he is being
a vindictive asshole. Think about it. With all the commitments he has
made in his life, his home life has to suffer; you can't be a father on 10
minutes a day.
Christian attorney Charles Graham put it this way:
"I once attended a conference in which one of the speakers was a
prominent, retired preacher. During his portion of the program, he
related a personal experience to demonstrate the level of commitment
he felt Christians needed when it came to work within the church.
All my life I've been completely devoted to God and His work.
I've preached several times every Sunday, led week-long revivals,
[yadda, yadda] . ... I've never let anything stand in the way, even
when it was something I personally wanted real bad.
I remembver one time with my son came up to me. I'd been
away for several weeks, preaching at other churches as I was
accustomed to doing, and I was packing my bags to leave again
for another three weeks. My boy looked up at me with tears
running down his cheeks and said, "Daddy, please don't go.
Please stay home with me."
Even though it hurt, I told my son that I had to go and do God's
work, and then I sent him back to his mother. In fact, she really
raised all of our children all by herself. I wasn't around very much
while they were growing up. I didn't help them with their home-
work or play catch in the front yard. And most of the time, I
coudn't be there for birthdays or when they received awards at
school. But you see, you really have to be committed if you're
going to do God's work.
Unfortunately for his children, this preacher forgot that "doing God's
work" also involves the education, training, and raising of the children
[yadda, yadda]."
If Doug is spending nearly two hours a day surfing the 'Net, two
or three hours a day studying and attending classes, and ten hours
a day going to and from and doing his day job (remember that he
lives in California, and commutes can be nasty), his wife and kids
are by definition being neglected.
> Of course, he thinks all the rest of us
> are unsaved slobs, destined for hellfire.
>
> I know that's a warped way to live.
Since I have the free time to invest, I enjoy jawing with my friends
and acquaintances on the 'Net, and can do so without guilt. But for
a guy like Doug, it is not so much a luxury as it is an embarrassment.
Rang...@concentric.net
> On 2 Apr 2000 16:27:49 GMT, Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com>
> wrote:
> >Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > He has the training and skill to be a lawyer, but is too moral to
> >> > actually practice as one. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
> >>
> >> LOL. Sure. Ken's high moral standards are why the bar refuses to let him
> >> practice law in Colorado.
> >
> >Give it up, Doug. You could spend less time laughing nervously,
> >and more time being happy.
>
> No, for Doug, life is not good unless he isn't a vindictive creep to
> someone, in this case Ken. Of course, he thinks all the rest of us
> are unsaved slobs, destined for hellfire.
Unfortunately, it is a natural by-product of toxic Christianity. It
also makes you more susceptible to exploitation by con-men like
Bob Larson and Craig "Swiss-America" Smith who know how to
push your 'hot buttons'.
> I know that's a warped way to live.
Fortunately, I've never been there.
> Thankfully, I gave it up a decade
> ago after I heard a pastor preach about how we needed to get the
> reality of hell into our hearts. The consequent soul-searching that I
> went through made me decide that I wanted nothing to do with a God who
> was that vindictive.
And that's kind of where I am now. Personally, I find the notion of
the capricious, malicious, and avaricious petty tribal dictator that the
god of the Bible would have to be as incongruous as it is incompre-
hensible. I wouldn't worship the Great Stalin, and cannot respect his
cosmic counterpart.
> Kind of like our Doug.
God made Man in his own image ... and Man returned the favor. :)
Doug
> In that case, Doug is Godlike.
thanks.
Doug
> But isn't the underlying assumption: Christianity is right and all
> other worldviews are wrong?
It happens to be a class offered in a Christian Seminary. All of the
students are either Christian Ministers, or laypersons. There is freedom
of conscience, but the seminary has a code of beliefs that a person is
asked if they subscribe to prior to enrollment.
> An honest take on it would be to present all of
> the material, and then let the student make up his own mind.
The funny part is that when the alternatives are presented most of the
people recoil in horror. They've never heard a consistent naturalist
argument or grappled with why a naturalist would become a nihlist, for
instance. The more exposure that a Christian gets to the non-Christian
worldviews the less attractive they are.
Doug
> I prefer to believe it's a cry for help. He knows, deep down inside,
> that he doesn't want to be a pastor.
When did I say that I was attending Seminary to become a pastor? I have
no such ambitions. Being a pastor is a very low prestige and low pay
position. It's not what it once was. It's long hours and little respect.
> He knows it's untrue.
LOL. That's why I'm spending 30K on a seminary education plus thousands
of hours in study? LOL.
> But he
> doesn't yet have the intestinal fortitude to make a clean break. So
> he's doing everything he can to sabotage his "walk" without actually
> giving up his faith.
I'd give it up in a minute if something better came along. Trouble is,
there's nothing better.
Doug
> Doug knows that a statement taken out of context is a pretext, and
> despite the obvious analogy drawn by Bob W. between Gantry and
> Larson, he has to play his petty little game.
Now I'm confused. It seemed to fit Ken Smith so well.
Doug
> He could make a fine pastor ... of a Christian Identity church. How
> he could ever meet the 'moral fitness' requirements of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 in
> any other context, we will never know. Temperate? Self-controlled?
> Respectable? Not quarrelsome? Having a good reputation with out-
> siders? Puh-leeeze!
It's more fun to not be professional clergy. I can wrestle with you
folks and hold my own. A pastor would get diced just because he's a
pastor with you all.
Doug
>
> Doug wrote:
> > It's just that Ken sues Larson and Larson wins.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. If Larson had had half a brain, he
> would have cut a deal long before the shit hit the fan.
LOL. Ken - you're the only person I know who can turn a silk purse into
a sows ear.
Doug
> He's already beat Ken,
>
> You mean, kind of like the way that Chuck Smith and his faithful
> follower Joe Marino handed you your lunch? Nobody takes you
> seriously any more, Doug. You're a Steve Winter-class crank, and
> an embarrassment to Christianity.
LOL. And Ken is an embarrasment to atheism.
> I mean, you're so embarrassed that you won't even reveal which
> "seminary" you attend.
What double wide did you get your law degree in? You've never told us.
Doug
> For Doug, life is not good, period. That's what happens when a man
> with the ability to be rational finds himself locked in a belief
> system that won't let him exercise his mind.
My life couldn't be better. I'm completely amused everytime I read this
newsgroup.
Jason has no reason to trust reason. Yet he clings to it. Odd. I know
why reason can be trusted. Now that's a basis for faith. Jason has a
blind faith in reason.
Doug
> Ah, the wicked should be judged on the quality of their lawyers.
> That's right Christian of you, Doug. There's hope for you yet.
LOL. So Ken - the un-lawyer - picked lousy lawyers. Pick your poison as
he's either got bad discernment about picking lawyers or his case
sucked.
Doug
> Honesty is better, Doug. And sometimes honesty means admitting
> that you don't have the answer to everything, that you aren't
> omniscient. If you still have questions, that's good. It means you
> have work to do.
You should pick a worldview that does the best job of answering the
questions. Naturalism misses the boat.
Christianity has hard questions to answer, but provides coherent answers
to them. The fact is, it's the only alternative when the others are all
ruled out. And that's a rational process that anyone can perform.
Doug
> My take exactly. If Doug was enrolled in an academic program of
> any repute -- and you'll note that he still hasn't told us what
> seminary he attends -- studying would eat up all of his free time,
> assuming that he had his priorities screwed on straight.
Seminary doesn't take too much time. Less than 10 hours per week. I
usually only take one or two classes at a time. I'm not all that hard a
studier. In fact, my homework assignments get done in large part by
debating the counterpoints here.
> > Doug must be uninterested in his family.
>
> It does seem that way....
I get up early just to refute Ken. It starts my day off nicely. Some
people have morning devotions. I prefer a morning debate.
Doug
> > > reading this stuff on your own. You know there are things called
> > > "libraries". With what you'd save by halting your so-called education
> > > now, you could put together quite an impressive library.
> >
> > Naw. Nihlism is pointless. Why bother studying it?
>
> That's an evasion, for as you well know, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.
Did anyone mention Nietzsche in this thread?
Jason Steiner
> > inside, that he doesn't want to be a pastor.
>
> When did I say that I was attending Seminary to become a pastor? I
> have no such ambitions. Being a pastor is a very low prestige and
> low pay position. It's not what it once was. It's long hours and
> little respect.
Unless you're planning to become a televangelist, seminary training
isn't going to prepare you for any high-prestige, high-pay jobs. A
doctorate of theology from a good school could prepare you for a
position in academia, but you're no academic, and at $30,000, you're
not going to a good school.
> > He knows it's untrue.
>
> LOL. That's why I'm spending 30K on a seminary education plus
> thousands of hours in study? LOL.
More nervous laughter. Yes, Doug, that's exactly what I'm saying.
It's said that many students of psychology go into the field of
psychology to learn how to fight their own demons. Your demons
are entirely mythical, so you study myth instead.
> > But he doesn't yet have the intestinal fortitude to make a clean
> > break. So he's doing everything he can to sabotage his "walk"
> > without actually giving up his faith.
>
> I'd give it up in a minute if something better came along. Trouble
> is, there's nothing better.
By sabotaging yourself, you've already given it up. All that's left
is to face up to it.
Jason Steiner
That's false, and you know it. Keep lying, Doug. It doesn't bother
me. It only increases the cognitive dissonance in your own head.
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
> > Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Jason Steiner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > be reading this stuff on your own. You know there are things
> > > > called "libraries". With what you'd save by halting your so-
> > > > called education now, you could put together quite an
> > > > impressive library.
> > >
> > > Naw. Nihlism is pointless. Why bother studying it?
> >
> > That's an evasion, for as you well know, Nietzsche wasn't a
> > nihilist.
>
> Did anyone mention Nietzsche in this thread?
"You could be reading this stuff on your own."
Nietzsche is part of "this stuff". Not only was he not a nihilist, but
neither are most of the other alternate viewpoints contained within
"this stuff". But you know that too. You're just engaging in more
evasion.
Jason Steiner
> > that you don't have the answer to everything, that you aren't
> > omniscient. If you still have questions, that's good. It means you
> > have work to do.
>
> You should pick a worldview that does the best job of answering the
> questions.
And the best is often "I don't know". Having an answer is not the
same thing as having any answer.
Doug
> > You should pick a worldview that does the best job of answering the
> > questions.
>
> And the best is often "I don't know". Having an answer is not the
> same thing as having any answer.
Christianity has stood the test of time as an answer. Naturalism varies
from day to day as the the approach to the big questions. It takes
tracks into bad information that last for decades. The steady state
theory died a long hard death. Most of its advocates were naturalists
who resist the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.
Doug
> Nietzsche is part of "this stuff". Not only was he not a nihilist, but
> neither are most of the other alternate viewpoints contained within
> "this stuff". But you know that too. You're just engaging in more
> evasion.
Nihlism is consistent naturalism.
Doug
> > Jason has no reason to trust reason. Yet he clings to it. Odd. I
> > know why reason can be trusted. Now that's a basis for faith. Jason
> > has a blind faith in reason.
>
> That's false, and you know it. Keep lying, Doug. It doesn't bother
> me. It only increases the cognitive dissonance in your own head.
So what's the reason that you trust in reason, Jason. Because it works?
Doug
> Unless you're planning to become a televangelist, seminary training
> isn't going to prepare you for any high-prestige, high-pay jobs. A
> doctorate of theology from a good school could prepare you for a
> position in academia, but you're no academic, and at $30,000, you're
> not going to a good school.
LOL. Only the best school in Southern California. Anyway, I'm not after
a doctorate, that would probably end up costing me a couple of hundred
grand in "missed opportunity cost" as well as tuition. I'm only getting
a Masters in Theology at this point in time. May switch and get an MDiv,
possibly.
Doug
Why is the universe predictable, Jason? I think it is, you have no
reason to believe it to be predictable other than the fact that it has
been whenever you've examined it.
Doug
> I know that's a warped way to live. Thankfully, I gave it up a decade
> ago after I heard a pastor preach about how we needed to get the
> reality of hell into our hearts. The consequent soul-searching that I
> went through made me decide that I wanted nothing to do with a God who
> was that vindictive. Kind of like our Doug.
And your fruit is present for all to see.
Doug
> Unless you're planning to become a televangelist, seminary training
> isn't going to prepare you for any high-prestige, high-pay jobs. A
> doctorate of theology from a good school could prepare you for a
> position in academia, but you're no academic, and at $30,000, you're
> not going to a good school.
Where did you get your Masters Degree in Engineering from?
Doug
> Doug thinks that anyone who bests him must be of Satan.
Naw. I think lots of people are of Satan.
John Hattan
>Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> LOL. Only the best school in Southern California.
>
>No, Doug. And you should be ashamed for even trying such a transparent
>lie.
>
>I know what tuition at good schools in California run. One of my
>co-workers has a daughter who just got accepted to the architecture
>program at USC, and has been wailing about the price.
Has Dug actually given the name of his school yet?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner