Re: Science and God
James
>Re: Science and God
>
>
>AJA wrote:
>
>> I've said this before here, but again, I see nothing in science which would
>> preclude belief in God. I'm not a strict Biblical literalist, but believe
>> that Scripture is inspired by God. But that science and faith inform each
>> other. (Say it's all in Plato- or Aristotle)
>> A couple of points, which btw some of my scientist acquaintances agree with.
>> Science is the observation (ours) of the workings of a remarkable creation.
>> It is difficult to maintain that the existing highly complicated conditions
>> allowing for our existence has no purpose.
>> If science intends to postulate a purpose for the cosmos and the existence
>> of life in that cosmos, and sentience/consciousness, then science has to
>> think out of the box somehow.
>> There is that pesky beginning point. Why begin at all, and all those other
>> questions about the beginning. Why can we observe it at all?
>> Why do all organisms have a 'use'?
>> 'Faith' is an important part of the scientific process.
>> Faith that can't consider science and science that negates/ignores faith is
>> half baked. Science is not mere experimentation as the observation part
>> requires a thought process with elements closely akin to faith.
>> Matthew's Aristotle sig quote is accurate.
>
>How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years) with the
>timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion years)?
Hello,
How do you define the "Creation timeline"? Do you mean how old the
earth and universe is?
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Tim Bruening
James wrote:
Yes.
Read The Bible
> preclude belief in God.
I think atheists would say that because materialistic
science hasn't been able to find any God, this is
evidence that there isn't any God. The problem with
this argument is that a purported absence of evidence
isn't evidence of absence.
It would be like if there was a scientist who lived
underground her whole life and had never seen the
sun; then one day someone comes into her room and
says "Why are you living down in this dank room? Why
don't you go up and get some sun?"
"What 'sun'?"
"The sun in the sky."
"What 'sky'?"
"What do you mean? You've never seen the sun or the
sky?"
"I don't know what you're talking about."
(Pointing up) "Up there, you know, the bright ball
of light moving slowly across the blue vault."
"Are you mad? (Looking up at the ceiling) Up there
are 68 acoustic tiles with 4,986 holes in them; they
consist mainly of cardboard fiber and some sort of
glue, the molecular structure of which I am still
working on. There is no "sun" and no "sky". The only
light source "up there" are those two flourescent
bulbs you can see with your own eyes. Now please
leave, I have work to do."
"Lady, you're the mad one. Go up to the surface and
you'll know what I'm talking about."
"What 'surface'?"
"The surface of the earth. You're living underground."
(Laughing) "Underground? Preposterous! You can see
that I am living in air under acoustic tiles. There
is no 'ground' above us, only below us."
"You're going to have to leave this room to
understand what I mean."
"Why should I leave this perfectly comfortable room?"
"There's something much better up there."
"Prove it."
"I can't, if you won't leave this room."
(Pointing at the door) "Then please leave; I have no
more time for this absurd nonsense."
"Okay. But I tell you this room isn't all there is."
And that would be that.
Those with faith reach the same impasse with
materialists for whom the only acceptable proof is
material proof; they will not accept the possibility of
something (i.e. spirit) which exists beyond the
physical dimensions of matter.
Without knowing about spirit, they can't know all the
works of God:
"As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor
how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with
child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who
maketh all" (Ecclesiastes 11:5).
Without having received the Spirit of God, they can't
know about spirit:
"Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the
Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of
the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we
might know the things that are freely given to us of
God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him;
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known
the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we
have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).
> AJA said: I'm not a strict Biblical literalist, but
> believe that Scripture is inspired by God.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
> AJA said: Science is the observation (ours) of the
> workings of a remarkable creation.
Materialistic science is the observation of only the
material workings of a remarkable creation; it is
completely ignorant of the spiritual workings of that
same remarkable creation.
Read The Bible
> existing highly complicated conditions allowing for
> our existence has no purpose.
Actually, it isn't that difficult, for materialists can
easily postulate that there are an infinite number of
universes continuously forming and dying, so that, out
of infinite possibilities, one of them could have
happened by chance upon those initial conditions and
fundamental constants which are conducive to the
eventual formation of life within that universe. In
this view, "the existing highly complicated conditions
allowing for our existence" still would not have a
"purpose" even though they brought about life, for even
life itself in the materialistic view has no "purpose";
it simply is. And if someone with faith answers that
something can't just be without having any purpose; the
materialist can ask what is the purpose for the
existence of God; for which of course there is no
answer; He just is.
"I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14).
The materialist can say the same about the material
universe and life:
"It is that it is."
And the materialist can say that only each individual
human can decide what "purpose", if any besides a
comfortable survival, he or she wants to ascribe to his
or her life, like helping others to also have a
comfortable survival. Beyond that, he or she can work
so that the human race itself will have a comfortable
survival as far into the future as the universe will
allow, that is, before proton decay begins to set in
and matter itself begins to melt away. Beyond that, his
or her only hope is that somehow, by that time, mankind
will have found a way to jump to other, younger
universes compatible to life, and so continue surviving
there. So, in the end, materialists have to pin their
hope on something beyond the matter of this universe,
which is what those with faith do already, although
they don't have to jump to other universes, for the
unseen, spiritual dimensions of this universe are
already eternal in themselves:
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but
at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not
seen are eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:18).
This is why Jesus says people must be "born again" by
the Spirit of God into the spiritual dimensions if they
are to live forever:
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto
thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:5-7).
Paul explains that this will be fulfilled even in our
bodies at the resurrection of believers:
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption
inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump;
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:50-53).
But we won't become wispy ghosts strumming harps on
clouds, but will still have bodies of "flesh and bones"
(but with no blood), for Jesus' immortal, resurrection
body is the model for what believers will receive at
His 2nd coming:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself;
handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39).
"We look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:20-21).
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see
him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him
purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3).
So those with faith not only have the hope of personal
immortality, but can also be glad that the believing
portion of the human race will also continue on
forever. Materialists have no hope of personal
immortality, unless they want to daydream about the
possibility of one day being able to somehow download
their brains into a computer, and perhaps there be able
to retain their personal "consciousness", something
which materialistic science hasn't yet been able even
to define, much less to re-create in a computer. So, in
the end, the daydreams of materialists about their own
computer-based immortality, and the universe-jumping
immortality of the human race, are mere science
"fiction", no more provable than the hopes of those
with Christian faith.
> AJA said: If science intends to postulate a purpose
> for the cosmos and the existence of life in that
> cosmos, and sentience/consciousness, then science has
> to think out of the box somehow.
Materialistic science has no need to postulate a
"purpose" for the universe, life, and consciousness
beyond their existence, just as Christian faith has no
need to to postulate a "purpose" for God beyond His
existence. For both, existence in itself is enough.
But materialistic science does have to ultimately
think "outside the box" of the material universe if
it wants to continue in existence, because the entropic
mortality of the material universe is inevitable.
Where materialism would differ from Christian faith,
however, would be in its continued refusal to postulate
any form of existence beyond the material; i.e., it
cannot make the leap into any ideas of "spirit", for
these cannot be materially proven. Yet it's stuck at
this point because neither have the existence of any
other universes been proven, much less that it would
be possible for mankind to "jump" from one space-time
continuum into a completely different one with who
knows how many dimensions, and with who knows what
fundamental constants. And if they answer that it's
possible that other universes could be found and ways
could be found to send probes into them to see if they
are habitable, Christian faith could reply that they
are then operating as much in "faith" as Christians
are, for:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
Materialists are forced to merely "hope" for other
universes, and "hope" that a way can be found to enter
them, and "hope" that they are habitable; materialism
hasn't "seen" any of these things in the sense of
observing any of them as material realities. And yet it
so readily laughs and mocks at Christians who "hope"
for a 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, and "hope" to be
resurrected into immortal bodies, and "hope" to live
with God forever in a new material universe once this
current one has expired:
"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth;
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall
perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall
wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change
them, and they shall be changed" (Psalms 102:25-26).
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there
was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new
Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared
as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great
voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of
God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they
shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all
tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there
be any more pain: for the former things are passed
away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I
make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for
these words are true and faithful" (Revelation 21:1-5).
To such visions, a materialist might say "Yuck! Who
wants to have some 'God' watching over them every
moment? I don't care how utopian that universe is; I'd
rather go into oblivion than live forever serving some
'God'. I will do what 'I' want, or nothing at all."
And so would be revealed the heart of materialism: 'I'.
(Continued in next post)
Read The Bible
Materialism cannot stand any idea of "spirit" because
"spirit" implies "God", and it won't have any "God"
above itself; it must either find its own material
immortality, or cease to exist altogether. And so, in
the end, it is really searching, like Satan, to find a
way for itself to become like "God" without having to
submit to Him in any way:
"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend
into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars
of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend
above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the
most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to
the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:13-15).
Materialism hast said in its heart, I will ascend into
space, I will find a way to travel to the stars; I
will find inhabitable planets where I will plant
colonies of mankind. When the universe itself
eventually decays, I will find a way to ascend above
it into another, younger universe; I will be like an
immortal god; I will never cease to exist. Yet it
shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the
pit.
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish"
(Luke 13:3).
"They should repent and turn to God" (Acts 26:20).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
This simple Christian faith is the only way that man
WILL move to other planets and star-systems and
galaxies and universes, and WILL live forever, and
WON'T burn in hell forever. God will allow believing
mankind to do everything materialists hope to do, but
only as it is submitted to Him:
"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath
made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and
the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).
"And none can keep alive his own soul" (Psalms 22:29).
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being"
(Acts 17:28).
"By him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17).
Here is the "GUT" materialists are searching for, that
"Grand Unification Theory" that will identify that
single equation of that single force which ultimately
underlies all forces, and so all matter, and so all
life: it is Jesus!
"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).
Jesus is everything materialists are looking for; that
force which brought the Big Bang singularity into
existence with those perfect initial conditions and
fundamental constants which would be suitable for
life as we know it. And Jesus is the hoped for "way"
for mankind to escape its inevitable death within this
entropic universe, and gain immortality.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there
is none other name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The name of Materialism can't save us. It's tied
helplessly to an inevitable, entropic death. And
because it rejects God, the source of its very
existence, its punishment will be to suffer eternal
torment in an eternal entropy, an eternal decay, an
eternal death:
"The second death" (Revelation 21:8).
"Their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire
be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24).
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:46).
Turn from materialism before it's too late; turn to
the Lord Jesus Christ and receive eternal life.
"For I have no pleasure in the death of him that
dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves,
and live ye" (Ezekiel 18:32).
"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have
no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the
wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye
from your evil ways; for why will ye die...?"
(Ezekiel 33:11).
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised
him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9).
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures; and that he was buried,
and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).
And then, once you have received this gift of the Holy
Spirit, you will KNOW the truth; you will have left
your little underground room and come up and seen the
sun and the sky for yourself!
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth
speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There
is no speech nor language, where their voice is not
heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
|
In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and
rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going
forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit
unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the
heat thereof.
|
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the
simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing
the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true
and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they
than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than
honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy
servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great
reward.
|
Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from
secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from
presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me;
then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from
the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and
the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight,
O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer" (Psalms 19:1-14).
Angelin...@gmail.com
Read The Bible wrote:
>>"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>>profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
>>for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
If Bible was truly inspired by God, like it claims, it wouldn't have
so many errors and contradictions right?
However, that's not true. Bible literally has hundreds of errors and
contradictions between different parts.
So if that part (being inspired by God) of the Bible is not true, why
should I believe anything else it says is valid?
Samuel W. Heywood
What about the parts that are just statements of
simple self-evident truths?
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
G-Net
news:1153827971.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> AJA said: I see nothing in science which would
>> preclude belief in God.
>
> I think atheists would say that because materialistic
> science hasn't been able to find any God, this is
> evidence that there isn't any God. The problem with
> this argument is that a purported absence of evidence
> isn't evidence of absence.
I agree completely! There is an arrogance that many or
most of these folks have that is chilling. They somehow
have come to the conclusion that IF God existed, He
would most certainly contact THEM because after all,
THEY are so smart, good looking, etc. Because to
their way of thinking, He hasn't so He must not
exist.
You make some remarkably great points! The only
thing I would add is that there are some things
that you can "see" of God however you have to
know where and how to look. It seems to me
that atheists are so focused on what they
think they "know" and won't listen to any
one or anything but that. Maybe this is all
part of the arrogance as well.
Angelin...@gmail.com
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What about the parts that are just statements of
> simple self-evident truths?
Well, then how is it different from any other "feel-good",
"love-each-other" book ???
The claim of the Bible is not that it's just a good book, but that it
was literally inspired by God, God told the authors what to write,
that's why they call it God's word.
It's not just taught as a suggestion book in churches, it's always
the final authority because it's infallible! But the truth is Bible
has hundreds of errors is very far from infallibility in many areas,
specially scientific.
I am not even talking about how it even contradicts itself in "simple
truths", want examples, here you go:
Do you love each other, turn the other cheek and never strike, much
less kill a man, or is it eye for an eye???
Does God love everyone equally (John 3:16), or does he have people that
he doesn't love, like Esau, who he hated???
vernon
"G-Net" <netn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3Irxg.5229$fL3.5011@trnddc07...
> "Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1153827971.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> AJA said: I see nothing in science which would
>>> preclude belief in God.
>>
>> I think atheists would say that because materialistic
>> science hasn't been able to find any God, this is
>> evidence that there isn't any God. The problem with
>> this argument is that a purported absence of evidence
>> isn't evidence of absence.
>
> I agree completely! There is an arrogance that many or
> most of these folks have that is chilling. They somehow
> have come to the conclusion that IF God existed, He
> would most certainly contact THEM because after all,
> THEY are so smart, good looking, etc. Because to
> their way of thinking, He hasn't so He must not
> exist.
You mean, I'm not?
>
>> It would be like if there was a scientist who lived
>> underground her whole life and had never seen the
>> sun; then one day someone comes into her room and
>> says "Why are you living down in this dank room? Why
>> don't you go up and get some sun?"
Greek "clouds"
I know that most don't like to hear it, but God is the one who opens eyes.
We like to think we are so intelligent and perfect.
It sounds VERY caustic, but an atheist is not much different from a dog who
can talk. I mean this "SPIRITUALLY" only.
God chooses.
Libertarius
All individuals, even "identical" twins, are different,
hence no two individuals' minds are the same,
so, lacking an objective referent,
all "gods" are not only imagined,
but also different for each believer,
though they imagine their gods to be the same
as everyone else's. -- L.
Libertarius
Read The Bible wrote:
> (Continued from prior post)
>
> Materialism cannot stand any idea of "spirit" because
> "spirit" implies "God",
===>False premises lead to false conclusions.
In fact materialism can easily stand the idea of "spirit" because
"spirit" is nothing but air. And air is material.
Of course it is stupid to assume that our consciousness
depends on air molecules. -- L.
Dan Drake
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> > >How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years) with the
> > >timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion years)?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > How do you define the "Creation timeline"? Do you mean how old the
> > earth and universe is?
>
> Yes.
There's a remarkable amount of ignorance of the subject matter among
atheists (or whatever term each may prefer) arguing against Christianity.
I can only compare it to that of Young-Earth Creationists talking about
biology and geology (and cosmology and nuclear physics...)
One is tempted to think that Lewis was right about a need to present the
ideas more accurately to the public; and not only in Britain, which has a
state church and therefore pays little attention to the matter, but even
in the pious USA.
To be sure, the YEC people believe that you MUST believe the Genesis
account in some essentially literal way or abandon any pretended
affiliation to Christianity; but before believing that to be true,
consider: Would you take their word for anything else? If not, why believe
them on this?
But this is mere third-party observation; I must yield the floor to those
directly concerned.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
Eric Brze
>
>Read The Bible wrote:
>>>"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>>>profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
>>>for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
>
>If Bible was truly inspired by God, like it claims, it wouldn't have
>so many errors and contradictions right?
Not necessarily. The truth will reflect the Truth, but the errors can
also reflect the Truth in their own erroneous ways. It all depends on
whether you can find the divine guiding light from within yourself.
Angelin...@gmail.com
Eric Brze wrote:
>>but the errors can also reflect the Truth in their own erroneous ways
WOW, That is a very weird and cultish statement...
Buy anyway, I wasn't even talking about spiritual things, how about
just basic mistakes and errors.
There are hundreds of them, here are just few for you:
Mistake in Joseph's genealogy: Matthew says Jacob was Joseph's father,
Luke says Heli was.
Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
------------------------------
The same event is described twice, but the number of years of famine is
different:
II Samuel 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him,
shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou
flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I Chron. 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the
LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be
destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies
overtaketh thee;
------------------------------------------------------
Who moved David to anger: Lord or Satan???
II Samuel 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and
Judah.
I Chron 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to
number Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------
Contradiction in how many animals entered the ark
Gen 7:2 God says to take 7 of clean and 2 of unclean animals:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
female."
However, just few verses down it says that Noah took only 2 of each
animal just as God commanded.
Gen. 7:8-9
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two
unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded
Noah.
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew and Luke give two absolutely different accounts of how Judas
died.
Matt 27:5
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed,
and went out and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his
bowels gushed out."
--------------------------------------------
Two different accounts of Paul's conversion: did the men hear the voice
or not.
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were
afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Eric Brze
>
>Eric Brze wrote:
>>>but the errors can also reflect the Truth in their own erroneous ways
>>>It all depends on whether you can find the divine guiding light from within yourself.
>
>
>WOW, That is a very weird and cultish statement...
How so? I never know any cult. Hell, I don't belong to any church
organization either. I'm a one person congregation.
>
>Buy anyway, I wasn't even talking about spiritual things, how about
>just basic mistakes and errors.
That's sad to hear. If you are not talking about spiritual things
which are the focus of Bible teaching, then you are already missing
the point.
>There are hundreds of them, here are just few for you:
snip and they are gone.
Find the right focus and we can discuss farther.
Angelin...@gmail.com
Eric Brze wrote:
> How so? I never know any cult. Hell, I don't belong to any church
> organization either. I'm a one person congregation.
That's even worse :)
> That's sad to hear. If you are not talking about spiritual things
> which are the focus of Bible teaching, then you are already missing
> the point.
>
The point is that if Bible is not inspired by God, then what makes it
different than any other book. Koran, Theravada, Book of Mormon or
Confucian Writings they all talk about spiritual thing too.
Why don't you base your life on Spiderman cartoon books then, they
have just as much divine inspiration as the Bible, with probably a lot
less errors, due to better editing.
Without divine inspiration Bible is nothing, but a collection of jewish
stories. I've read it and didn't find it particular inspiring.
> snip and they are gone.
Yeah, whatever you're smoking isn't a good stuff...
>>Find the right focus and we can discuss farther.
What's to discuss, you base your life on a several thousand year old
piece of literature, pretend that it was written by creator of the
universe and talk to an imaginary diety.... I used to believe fairy
tales too, but then I graduated from kindergarten.
The_Sage
>Date written: 25 Jul 2006 04:46:11 -0700
>MsgID:<1153827971.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> AJA said: I see nothing in science which would
>> preclude belief in God.
>I think atheists would say that because materialistic
>science hasn't been able to find any God, this is
>evidence that there isn't any God. The problem with
>this argument is that a purported absence of evidence
>isn't evidence of absence.
Think again. If you claim that you successfully detonated a 10 megaton A-bomb in
your backyard last night, the complete lack of evidence (ie -- no crater, no
residual radiation, no blinding flash, no millions of casualties, and no massive
destruction of tens of square miles of landscapre) would be absolute proof that
you did not in fact successfully detonate a 10 megaton A-bomb in your backyard
last night. So logically and factually, there are times when the actual absence
of evidence is evidence of absence.
And the lack of evidence of any God is not purported, but actual. Think about
it...a belief in God requires more than just a simple belief in God, it requires
that you first believe that there are things that cannot be heard, seen,
smelled, tasted, or felt under any circumstances whatsoever. And then you have
to further pretend that there is no way to physically know these things of the
purported spiritual world (by definition). Now among all these things which you
will never know in any logical or physically real form, you have to further
pretend there is a God. Lastly, you have to pretend that this God is the "one
and only" "real" God. Not a single one of these leaps of faith is backed with
logic or facts. So when does the make believing end the reality begin for a
belief in God? It doesn't.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Falcon
>The point is that if Bible is not inspired by God, then what makes it
>different than any other book. Koran, Theravada, Book of Mormon or
>Confucian Writings they all talk about spiritual thing too.
So which one is correct?
--
Ciao,
Falcon
Eric Brze
>
>Eric Brze wrote:
>> How so? I never know any cult. Hell, I don't belong to any church
>> organization either. I'm a one person congregation.
>
>That's even worse :)
It saves a lot of money. 10% at the least. :-)
>
>
>> That's sad to hear. If you are not talking about spiritual things
>> which are the focus of Bible teaching, then you are already missing
>> the point.
>>
>
>The point is that if Bible is not inspired by God, then what makes it
>different than any other book. Koran, Theravada, Book of Mormon or
>Confucian Writings they all talk about spiritual thing too.
>
>Why don't you base your life on Spiderman cartoon books then, they
>have just as much divine inspiration as the Bible, with probably a lot
>less errors, due to better editing.
>
>Without divine inspiration Bible is nothing, but a collection of jewish
>stories. I've read it and didn't find it particular inspiring.
The divine inspiration does not come from the Bible book or any other
books holy or not. The divine inspiration comes from the within, not
without.
>
>> snip and they are gone.
>
>Yeah, whatever you're smoking isn't a good stuff...
>
>>>Find the right focus and we can discuss farther.
>
>What's to discuss, you base your life on a several thousand year old
>piece of literature, pretend that it was written by creator of the
>universe and talk to an imaginary diety.... I used to believe fairy
>tales too, but then I graduated from kindergarten.
I base my life on the truth who is Jesus Christ. The Bible is a good
and necessary tool for me to discover the truth, but I'm not going to
blindly believe everything that is declared in the Bible. It's the
truth I believe, not anybody's claim because he is a biblical figure.
Eric Brze
wrote:
If you are with the Spirit, all of them are correct. If you are not
with the Spirit, none of them is correct.
Angelin...@gmail.com
Eric Brze wrote:
> I base my life on the truth who is Jesus Christ. The Bible is a good
> and necessary tool for me to discover the truth, but I'm not going to
> blindly believe everything that is declared in the Bible. It's the
> truth I believe, not anybody's claim because he is a biblical figure.
And how you decide what is truth and what is not???
Eric Brze
I think I told. I seek the divine guiding light. It's the work of the
Spirit which I follow.
Angelin...@gmail.com
Eric Brze wrote:
> I think I told. I seek the divine guiding light. It's the work of the
> Spirit which I follow.
Ahh, the spirit, that's right. And how do you know it's the right
spirit, maybe it's some other bad spirit that pretends to the good one,
just messing with you.
Eric Brze
I know it's the right spirit because it's the spirit in my heart.
There is only one spirit in my heart and in everyone's heart. There is
no other.
Bree
<wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:49:11 -0600, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
> this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
> the author
> smirk.
>
> And we know this is true because Lobotomy himself said so!
Union Gospel Missions drug alcohol and mental health Rehab program in
Seattle still awaits your arrival
Save time and tell them you are schizophrenic otherwise they'll have to
waste all of ten seconds working it out for themselves
vernon
"Falcon" <Falco...@verizzon.com> wrote in message
news:f0ldc2tk6h65iib91...@4ax.com...
New York Times?
>
> --
> Ciao,
> Falcon
Read The Bible
> begin at all, and all those other questions about
> the beginning.
These questions aren't pesky to materialists, just as
those same questions applied to God Himself aren't
pesky to those with Christian faith: When did God
begin? (Never) Why does He exist at all? (No reason
is needed: He is that he is -- Exodus 3:14). The
materialists can answer the same: Why did the universe
begin at all? (It could have arisen out of a larger
universe of universes, an "all", in which an infinite
number of universes are continually budding into a
separate being and then decaying slowly back into the
"all", which could have always existed and always will
exist) I.e., they can ascribe to a material universe
of universes the "from everlasting to everlasting"
(Psalms 90:2) attribute of the Christian God.
> AJA said: Why can we observe it at all?
Christians would say so that we can glorify God for
His work (Job 36:24-25); materialists would say sight
evolved by natural selection in animals so that they
could see food sources and possible mates at a
distance and move toward them, or see harmful things
at a distance and move away from them, so helping
them better to survive and have more offspring.
> AJA said: Why do all organisms have a 'use'?
They don't necessarily, not even in the Christian
view, for what was the "use" of animals to mankind
before the Fall? Before the Fall, man was only allowed
to eat plants (Genesis 1:29). And what's the "use" to
mankind of all those millions of fish in the deep
ocean that mankind never sees, and never will see? The
Christian answer would be that the "use" of every
creature is the glory and pleasure of God (Rev. 4:11).
The materialist would answer that the only "use"
creatures have is what other creatures might make of
them to further their own survival or comfort,
ultimately to increase their own longevity and
offspring.
> AJA said: 'Faith' is an important part of the
> scientific process.
Exactly right. Even materialists admit that they
cannot prove that if an experiment works today, it
will work tomorrow; they can expect it will with
very high probability, but there is no material
"proof" that it will work again until it is actually
"seen" working again. So they repeat the experiment
in "faith", for "faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
(Hebrews 11:1).
> AJA said: Faith that can't consider science and
> science that negates/ignores faith is half baked.
Rather, they're two different fully-baked loaves, if we
define faith as Christian faith that deals with matters
of the spirit, and we define science as materialistic
science that deals with matters of physical matter.
They're both the answer for the questions that they
ask. Christian faith doesn't look to temporal matter
for answers to its spiritual questions, but to the
eternal, unseen spirit (2 Corinthians 4:18, 5:7); while
materialism doesn't look to the unseen spirit for
answers to its material questions, but only to matter
itself.
> AJA said: Science is not mere experimentation as the
> observation part requires a thought process with
> elements closely akin to faith.
But materialists don't call it "faith", they call it
"probability", though they will admit that, especially
when they get down to the quantum level of matter,
often there is no way to know how the same experiment
will turn out until they actually see its results
(Schrodinger's cat-in-the-box must be considered as
both alive and dead at the same time until one opens
the box and actually "sees" which it is), and they will
admit that their very act of trying to "see" something
can change it from its original state, so that, for
example, the more they want to locate the position of a
particle the less they can know its velocity, and the
more they try to pinpoint its velocity the less they
can know its position (Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle).
---
> Tim said: How do you reconcile the Creation
> timeline (several thousand years) with the timeline
> established by geologists and paleontologists
> (4.5 billion years)?
That depends on what you mean by the Creation timeline,
for the "several thousand years" would only necessarily
relate to the time from the creation of the individual
man Adam, not necessarily from the creation of the
planet itself.
Read The Bible
> "Creation timeline"? Do you mean how old the earth
> and universe is?
The universe could be much older than the earth,
perhaps 10 billion years older. Genesis 1:1's "heaven"
and earth could refer only to the original creation
of the "sky" (i.e. the atmosphere) and the non-gaseous
part of the earth some 5 billion years ago, while
Genesis 1:3-2:4 could refer to seven literal days in
which God miraculously renewed the earth after some
sort of cataclysm, perhaps as long ago as "man" (i.e.
beginning with Cro Magnon man) has existed, so that
Genesis 1:26-28 could refer to a miraculous creation
of homo sapiens sapiens perhaps 40,000 years ago.
Then Genesis 2:7-8 could begin its account from about
6,000 years ago, when the individual man Adam was
miraculously created and placed in the Garden of Eden;
this timeframe closely matches when scientists say
men began to practice agriculture (cf. "till the
ground" in Genesis 2:5).
But then someone might ask, why is there no
geological record of a "cataclysm" 40,000 years ago?
Why are there fossils older than that, like of the
dinosaurs? The cataclysm could have kept intact
everything buried underground, and God could have
removed any surface-effects of the cataclysm when he
miraculously renewed the earth in 7 days.
But then someone might ask, are you going to tell me
that the sun, moon, and stars are only 40,000 years
old? (Genesis 1:16) And how could God have created
"light" on the earth before they existed?
(Genesis 1:3-5). The answer would be that God doesn't
need the sun and moon to light something up
(cf. Revelation 21:23), and the cataclysm could have
been that the earth was drawn gravitationally out of
its orbit in another star-system by a large massive
body of some kind passing nearby, so that the earth
could have been wandering about in the darkness of
interstellar space when God decided to restore it as
one of the crown jewels of the galaxy. He could have
miraculously formed a new star and a moon for it from
already-aged gas and rock, and set other planets in
place about the new sun. He then could have
miraculously created the 6,000 or so stars which are
visible to the naked eye and placed them in exact
positions so that from earth they would appear to
form certain shapes (i.e. the constellations). 6,000
stars is nothing compared to the 100s of billions of
stars that are just in our Milky Way galaxy alone,
not to mention all the stars in the other 100s of
billions of galaxies in the universe.
---
> Opie said on 7/25, 8:59 am: Spirit does NOT imply
> god at all.
Sure it does, for "God is a Spirit: and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"
(John 4:24).
In your view, if spirit doesn't imply God "at all",
then what does it imply?
> Opie said on 7/25, 8:59 am: It's just a word that's
> found a home in fanatic minds to imply what they
> want it to imply. Or, to put it another way, it
> gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling that they're
> really somebody because god gave them this spirit.
Why is any idea of "spirit" needed to get the warm,
fuzzy feeling? Wouldn't it be possible to get it solely
from thinking they're really somebody because God gave
them this material body?
And do you admit there could be "spirit", although not
of any "god"? If so, how would you describe your view
of "spirit"? And if you don't think any sort of "spirit"
can possibly exist, what do you base this on?
> Opie said on 7/25, 8:59 am: Explain, if you would,
> how spirit differs from consciousness which is
> clearly a function of amino acid sequences.
Please explain how consciousness is clearly a function
of amino acid sequences. Can you even define
consciousness from a strictly materialist viewpoint,
and then define each part of that definition from a
strictly materialist viewpoint, and then define each
part of those definitions from a strictly materialist
viewpoint, and so on?
-From a Christian viewpoint, consciousness can refer
simply to the waking state of the physical brain,
which has no correlation to the state of the spirit,
which can exist in a state of awareness completely
apart from the body (e.g. Revelation 6:9-11,
2 Corinthians 12:2-4).
---
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:10 am: If Bible was truly
> inspired by God, like it claims, it wouldn't have
> so many errors and contradictions right?
The Bible teaches no errors or contradictions.
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:10 am: Bible literally has
> hundreds of errors and contradictions between
> different parts.
Apparent contradictions can be resolved in a reasonable
fashion.
But how do we resolve the contradictions of science?
For example, is light a wave or a particle? How can
it act as both at the same time?
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:10 am: So if that part
> (being inspired by God) of the Bible is not true,
> why should I believe anything else it says is valid?
All of the Bible is inspired by God, and all that it
teaches is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16). If someone
doesn't believe the Bible after reading it themselves
with an open mind (Romans 10:17), nothing else will
be able to convince them of its truth (Luke 16:31).
Only God can give a person faith (Acts 13:48,
Ephesians 2:8); nobody decides on their own to
suddenly have it (John 1:13).
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>your head lodged
>FIRMLY 3 feet up your rectal cavity!
insane obsession with body parts AGAIN noted - weatherly, will you
EVER get your mind out of the gutter?
Angelin...@gmail.com
Read The Bible wrote:
>>Apparent contradictions can be resolved in a reasonable
>>fashion.
Well, I posted couple contradictions earlier, those were just few out
of a little over hundred. Most of them haven't been resolved, even
though people have known about them for at least 150 years. I would
love to hear your reasonable explanations...
Most of the times Christians don't even want to think about that, b/c
it threatens their entire way of life, for some even the source of
income.
>>But how do we resolve the contradictions of science?
>>For example, is light a wave or a particle? How can
>>it act as both at the same time?
And where exactly is the contradiction???
Where does it say that light can't be dual???
Science is based on observation, not on a thousand year old book.
Science doesn't claim to know all the answers; it just draws
conclusions from the observations.
Bible has to be right 100% for Christianity to make sense. However; as
I told you before there are multiple errors in the Bible of different
nature from simple biology (like describing insects with 4 legs) to
contradicting in basic Christian teachings (Does God love everyone
equally, or are there some people that He doesn't love, hate)
>>All of the Bible is inspired by God, and all that it
>>teaches is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16)
OK, from this point on all Christians should be required to take a
course in logic before speaking...
You can't site the source to prove validity of the same source!!!!
It's the same as if you yourself wrote: "I am the smartest man
alive", and when people laugh at you, you tell them: "well, it's
written right here, so it has to be true".
Libertarius
the ancient fables of the Bible to read some sense out of them. -- L.
Bree
<wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote:
> MANY an author of "self-help" books has referred readers and those
> seeking help and comfort to the words of King David and King Solomon.
>
> Both authors suggested that it is not particularly wise to get drunk
> when you are depressed. (alcohol being a depressant)
>
Gee what a bloody brilliant observation
I wonder how they worked that out
dear oh dear oh dear
Its a bit like someone pointing out that if you drop a brick on someones
head it doesn't hurt the brick
In your case however it might do the brick more damage than it does you.
Read The Bible
> that you can "see" of God however you have to know
> where and how to look. It seems to me that atheists
> are so focused on what they think they "know" and
> won't listen to any one or anything but that.
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse: because that, when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools" (Romans 1:18-22).
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"
(Psalms 14:1).
---
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:42 am: The claim of the
> Bible is not that it's just a good book, but that
> it was literally inspired by God, God told the
> authors what to write, that's why they call it
> God's word.
"We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when
we made known unto you the power and coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his
majesty. For he received from God the Father honour
and glory, when there came such a voice to him from
the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased. And this voice which came from
heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy
mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy;
whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a
light that shineth in a dark place, until the day
dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing
this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"
(2 Peter 1:16-21).
"Thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye
received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of men, but as it is in
truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh
also in you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
"That which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the
Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we
have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have
fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with
the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these
things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
|
This then is the message which we have heard of him,
and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him
is no darkness at all. If we say that we have
fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as
he is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son
cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned,
we make him a liar, and his word is not in us"
(1 John 1:1-10).
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:42 am: Bible has hundreds
> of errors
No: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16).
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:42 am: Do you love each
> other, turn the other cheek and never strike, much
> less kill a man, or is it eye for an eye?
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That
ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"
(Matthew 5:38-39).
"Now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by
how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,
which was established upon better promises. For if
that first covenant had been faultless, then should no
place have been sought for the second. For finding
fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not
according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to
lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Hebrews 8:6-9).
"There is verily a disannulling of the commandment
going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the
bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we
draw nigh unto God" (Hebrews 7:18-19).
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin
in the flesh" (Romans 8:3).
> Angelina said on 7/25, 9:42 am: Does God love
> everyone equally (John 3:16), or does he have
> people that he doesn't love, like Esau, who he
> hated?
"(For the children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but
of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder
shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have
I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say
then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I
will have compassion. So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh,
Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that
I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might
be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath
he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will
he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he
yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay
but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over
the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God,
willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction: and that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which
he had afore prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:11-23).
"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my
Father" (John 6:65).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent
not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved. He that
believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of
God" (John 3:16-18).
"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou
gavest them me; and they have kept thy word"
(John 17:6).
---
> Libertarius said on 7/25, 11:49 am: all "gods" are
> not only imagined, but also different for each
> believer
"We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that
there is none other God but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us
there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. 8:4-6).
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent" (John 17:3).
Read The Bible
> nothing but air.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit"
(Philemon 1:25).
"Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit
which he hath given us.
|
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are
gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of
God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now
already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little
children, and have overcome them: because greater is he
that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are
of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the
world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God
heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby
know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error"
(1 John 3:24-4:6).
"The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1).
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"
(Ephesians 6:11-12).
---
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm: Matthew says
> Jacob was Joseph's father, Luke says Heli was.
Heli could have been Joseph's father (in law), not in
blood, just as Joseph was Jesus' father (in
supposition), not in blood (Luke 3:23).
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm [Re: 2 Sam. 24:13,
> 1 Chr. 21:11]: the number of years of famine is
> different
Their scope might be different: e.g., 7 years in the
land of Israel, 3 years of which would extend to
surrounding lands as well.
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm [Re: 2 Sam. 24:1,
> 1 Chr. 21:1]: Who moved David to anger: Lord or
> Satan?
God in His anger against Israel could have allowed
Satan to move David to number Israel.
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm [Re: Gen. 7:2, 8-9]:
> Contradiction in how many animals entered the ark
Genesis 7:9 refers to the male-female pairing of the
animals, not to the number of pairs of each animal.
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm: [Re: Matthew 27:5,
> Acts 1:18]: two absolutely different accounts of
> how Judas died
They are two partial accounts of how he died.
> Angelina said on 7/25, 5:20 pm [Acts 9:7, 22:9]:
> did the men hear the voice or not.
The Greek for "hear" (akouo) can also mean
"understand" (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:2). They heard a
voice, but couldn't understand what it was saying.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>Elaine, get help, while it is still voluntary!
>
>I mean, when the right / (wrong) people see a few HUNDRED of your
>psychotic ravings and rantings in here, you rae going to be locked up
>for a VERY long time!
post your ridiculous, retarded idle rants somewhere else, old man
weatherless. You don't frighten me one iota.
You're a joke.
So are your opinions.
Now be quiet.
Bree
<wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Now kindly explain to us all how "primitives" in the 1st C and 1,000
> years prior knew that alcohol was a depressant.
They found out the same way I did - by drinking it!
In addition
Ever heard a blues singer?)
NOs...@no.spam
July 28,2006
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:05:58 -0700, john w <wjoh...@qwest.net>
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:18:00 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
>article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
>author
>Go warm up your vibrator, darlin',
>be sure the batteries are fresh,
>
>and then have sexual intercourse with yourself!
>
>(You must have the strongest wrists in Canada. You know! From all that
>vibrator action! )
>
>;-)
>
>
Jani
Yet another reason why I don't let my kids read "christian" newsgroups.
Jani
"john w" <wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:d0skc25n87ioion6v...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:30:27 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> Š 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>>Sexually inappropriate comments duly noted and archived:
>>July 28,2006
>
> delusions of self-importance by one Elaine Merle Matthews noted and
> archived.
>
> (like, who gives a shit, Elaine?)
>
>>
>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:05:58 -0700, john w <wjoh...@qwest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:18:00 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>>> Š 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:15:57 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>
> my posts.
>
> ;-)
>
> And to think, there was a time you were actually a nice person.
>
> oh well!
I still am. But don't you think it's a bit sad that one of the "banned
items" on my kids' Net access is christian groups?
Jani
>
>>
>>Yet another reason why I don't let my kids read "christian" newsgroups.
>>
>>Jani
>>
>>
>>"john w" <wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
>>news:d0skc25n87ioion6v...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:30:27 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>>> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
>>> author
>>>>Sexually inappropriate comments duly noted and archived:
>>>>July 28,2006
>>>
>>> delusions of self-importance by one Elaine Merle Matthews noted and
>>> archived.
>>>
>>> (like, who gives a shit, Elaine?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:05:58 -0700, john w <wjoh...@qwest.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:18:00 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>>>>> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
on 2006-07-28 announced this statement:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:30:27 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>>July 28,2006
>
> archived.
>
> (like, who gives a shit, Elaine?)
Still the same Dude......
Werner Kurator
--
===========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
==============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
==============================================================
Definition of a Good Job: Being able to do what you like to do when you
want to do it and have some idiot pay you for it.
-- rapskat in COLA
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
on 2006-07-29 announced this statement:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:48:39 +0200, Werner -the Christian Agnostic-
> Kurator <wer...@peace-with.all> wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>>john w in <d0skc25n87ioion6v...@4ax.com>
>>on 2006-07-28 announced this statement:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:30:27 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>>> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
>>> author
>>>>Sexually inappropriate comments duly noted and archived:
>>>>July 28,2006
>>>
>>> delusions of self-importance by one Elaine Merle Matthews noted and
>>> archived.
>>>
>>> (like, who gives a shit, Elaine?)
>>
>>Still the same Dude......
>
> Amazing isn't it, how many of my posts you skipped over ENTIRELY
> before you found THIS one to comment on!
It just happened that this afternoon I marked the group ACC as read,
and when I started to read it again some time ago, I found your
post, no need to search, and so I just read it, which as it
turned out was a mistake...
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Jesus put it this way:
>
> "Seek and you shall find."
Sorry what I'm seeking I haven't found in any of your posts.
So knowing that not much has changed I'll *ignore* you again.
If you feel worthwhile you may respond, just know I'll may be
not reading it...
I'm just wondering if you gave the following advice to another
single Christian mom?
== quote:
>>>>>Go warm up your vibrator, darlin',
>>>>>be sure the batteries are fresh,
>>>>>
>>>>>and then have sexual intercourse with yourself!
>>>>
>>>>>(You must have the strongest wrists in Canada. You know! From all that
>>>>>vibrator action! )
== end quote
>
Werner Kurator
--
===========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
==============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
==============================================================
The way I figure it, my bank can't possibly have any full-time employees,
because they aren't open enough hours for that.
-- Jonadab the Unsightly One in AFC
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:15:45 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>>
>>"john w" <wjoh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
>>news:bi3nc253dh9u55q95...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:15:57 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
>>> author
>>>>Still inappropriate, whoever reposted it.
>>>
>>> The nice thing about Usenet; I can post as I please, you can not read
>>> my posts.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> And to think, there was a time you were actually a nice person.
>>>
>>> oh well!
>>
>>I still am. But don't you think it's a bit sad that one of the "banned
>>items" on my kids' Net access is christian groups?
>
>
> I think it's sad that you wish to make OTHERs responsible for YOUR
> choices!
>
> If you find my posts (or others) that distasteful, perhaps you'd bring
> your child(ren) in here and point to some names and say, "Now, don't
> download those! Download that one!"
Yes, I could do that. But what I'm saying, John, is that if christians
*themselves* are behaving badly on Usenet, isn't it up to the christians to
present themselves in a manner which is suitable for children? How else are
the children going to gain a positive impression of christianity?
>
> You are MORE than welcome to kill file me!
>
> :-)
Naw, I wouldn't do that.
>
> But you'll still have to deal with "insane Elaine' and "Crazy Colonel
> Jimmy Agar".
I don't know Jimmy Agar, but I've said to Elaine that I don't agree with a
lot of her posts, and she's not had a problem with that.
>
> OTOH, I have complained for 6 YEARS now (the length of my sojourn here
> thus far) that this place is not fit for Christians. Too many
> atheists, too many demoniacs, too many psychotics.
>
> But, at least you know who they are!
See, I'm not saying that you, or anyone, should censor their own posts
because of who might be reading; I'm saying that posters *themselves* should
consider what kind of impression they're giving.
>
> And, see?
>
> We have now had a nice conversation!
Heh. We usually do, don't we? :-)
Seriously, I am careful about what my kids access on the Net, purely and
simply because I think it's down to *parents* to do that, not rely totally
on net-nanny programs and the like. But I also think it's genuinely sad that
religious ngs, and especially christian ones, have to be on the list of
"things you're not allowed". You see my point?
Jani
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>But you'll still have to deal with "insane Elaine' and "Crazy Colonel
>Jimmy Agar".
>
GOSSIP ALERT!! GOSSIP ALERT!!
>OTOH, I have complained for 6 YEARS now (the length of my sojourn here
>thus far) that this place is not fit for Christians. Too many
>atheists, too many demoniacs, too many psychotics.
>
Yes, we all know you're psychotic. a raving lunatic.. when do you ever
plan on getting treatment?
>But, at least you know who they are!
We sure do - YOU.
* irenic *
"Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:aYWdnXJxx-w...@pipex.net...
<>
> Seriously, I am careful about what my kids access on the Net, purely and
> simply because I think it's down to *parents* to do that, not rely totally
> on net-nanny programs and the like. But I also think it's genuinely sad
> that religious ngs, and especially christian ones, have to be on the list
> of "things you're not allowed". You see my point?
>
> Jani
Jani, you want your kids to read sanitized versions of Christianity? One way
of looking at the problems Christians-on-Usenet have (and they're not
necessarily representative of Christians-at-large... why?) is that their God
is so patient... 'look at what God has to deal with...' and none of us is
yet fully-redeemed...
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
“I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I
would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity”
(Oliver Wendell Holmes)
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,600 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:39:47 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
<some snips cos it was getting unwieldy>
[]
> But what I'm saying, John, is that if Christians
>>*themselves* are behaving badly on Usenet,
>
> #1 Why do you call them "Christians"?
> How do you know that EVERYONE in here who calls themselves "Christian"
> is one? (names that come to mind that are VERY doubtful would include
> CB, Elaine, Jim Agar, Scout Lady)
That's true, I don't - but on the whole, people who don't consider
themselves christians say so. I don't make any bones about being agnostic,
for instance. I do think it's possible for someone to be a christian and
behave badly; that just makes them a christian who's currently behaving
badly, it doesn't mean they're not a christian.
>
> Isn't it up to YOU to weed out the wheat from the chaff?
>
> Also, you perhaps need to take the "ugly behavior " in context. If the
> ONLY two stories you EVER read about Jesus were
>
> one about the day He yelled at Simon, "Get behind me, SATAN!" (in our
> modern jargon, "Get out of my face, Satan!)
>
> one about Him going into the temple one day, shrieking "This is a
> house of prayer! But YOU have turned it into a den of THIEVES!" and
> then VIOLENTLY driving them out with brute PHYSICAL force!
>
> if those were the only two stories you ever read, would you STILL have
> become a Christian?
>
> I likely would not!
Well, I'm not christian anyway, but I'd certainly agree that there's more to
the christian scriptures than one or two stories.
[]
> isn't it up to the christians to
>>present themselves in a manner which is suitable for children?
>
> What makes you believe that this is an environment suitable for
> children?
On the whole, I don't believe that Usenet *is* suitable for young children.
However, some groups *could* be, if the participants chose to make them so.
>
> Like I said, with OBVIOUS atheists, agnostics, demoniacs, (and maybe
> even Satan himself) in here, how are "true Christians supposed to
> act?"
I've had christians treat me (an agnostic) with politeness and courtesy,
whilst remaining firm in their own beliefs. You've done it yourself,
although you might not remember.
>
> Have you ever actually WATCHED someone cast a demon out of someone?
>
> VERY CHRISTIAN behavior, but NOT suitable for watching by children!
>
> I saw part of an exorcism once, before I -- and 500 others -- were
> asked to leave the room (to be certain no non-believers would be
> there, and so the demon(s) wouldn't have an available body to escape
> into)
>
> Before I left, it got UGLY.
>
> Christian behavior, but not pretty!
Exorcism is very uncommon here in Britain. It seems to be mainly confined to
a few small, non-mainstream African christian churches.
> How else are
>>the children going to gain a positive impression of christianity?
>
> At church. At home.
What of children who are not christian themselves? See, I don't think that
kids should be left to form negative opinions of other cultural / religious
/ethnic groups, when it's evident (to me, at least) that all such groups
will include good individuals and bad ones. I wouldn't want my kids to base
their opinion of the whole of Islam on the small sector of Muslims who are
terrorists, for instance.
>
> Try to not "elder the group". I have tried that AND FAILED miserably.
Oh, believe me, I'm not. People can and should post as they wish. I'm just
commenting on the impression given by some of the posts, that's all.
>>> You are MORE than welcome to kill file me!
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>Naw, I wouldn't do that.
>
> Nor would I killfile you. When I catch you in a good mood, you're very
> nice.
>
> And as you may have noticed, when you're nice to me, I'm nice to you.
> (one of MY personality flaws/part of my illness is that I find myself
> unable to smile when I'm being cursed, accused, or beaten on)
Yes, I shouldn't have been snippy with you. I do know that you don't respond
well to that, and I should have remembered. My bad.
[]
> but I've said to Elaine that I don't agree with a
>>lot of her posts, and she's not had a problem with that.
>
> "You don't agree with a lot of her posts." ???
>
> She's certifiably insane!
She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
experience is different.
[]
>>> And, see?
>>>
>>> We have now had a nice conversation!
>>
>>Heh. We usually do, don't we? :-)
>
> Frankly, as I have admitted, I have memory issues, and I remember your
> NAME VAGUELY.
>
> I seem to recall nice conversations, and one or two accusations. ??
No, we parted on good terms last time.
>
> However, "today is a new day", and today, I love you and wish only
> God's best for you!
Thank you.
>>Seriously, I am careful about what my kids access on the Net, purely and
>>simply because I think it's down to *parents* to do that, not rely totally
>>on net-nanny programs and the like.
>
> I'm SO glad to hear that!
>
> When my son finally confessed to me (some 6 months ago) that he'd
> been looking at some "soft porn" (naked ladies, as young males will
> do) "at a friend's house" (an unsupervised friend's house, I presume)
> on their computer...
>
> I realized, "I can do only so much, and then I must leave my little
> boy in God's hands."
>
> I however, cut him off at the pass. I said, "If you are about to ask
> me to show you some hardcore porn on my computer, the answer is "NO!"
>
> He didn't reply for a moment, and then said, "That isn't what I was
> going to ask you."
>
> And we moved on.
Heh. Sensible. How old is your son? I assume he's a teenager? If the worst
thing he's up to is looking at a few nekkid ladies, he's obviously not a bad
lad ...
>
>
> But I also think it's genuinely sad that
>>religious ngs, and especially christian ones, have to be on the list of
>>"things you're not allowed". You see my point?
>
> As I said, dear, I have been complaining about that for YEARS. And
> MANY have come in here asking if there truly ARE CHRISTIAN chat rooms
> anywhere?
>
> I personally am not interested. Nor am I interested in THIS place
> particularly. I have reasons to be in here, but it has nothing to do
> with "fun". I am here-- to put it tactfully, and not spill my beans--
> because God has put me here.
Fair enough.
> But-- YES-- I FULLY agree, there should be Christian chat rooms.
>
> In that light, I HIGHly recommend that you search for SPECIFICALLY
> "Christian Chat" in half-a-dozen engines, including Goggle.
>
> DO be aware, however, that the Internet-- like the world-- is NOT
> necessarily friendly towards your idea.
>
> ;-)
As it happens, we have family friends who are christian, and are very
knowledgeable about the faith. So my own kids aren't "deprived" of
discussions about christianity (or about other faiths, if it comes to that).
Not everyone is so lucky, though.
> And-- to put it frankly-- you may have detected by now that I am not a
> particularly "social creature". That's the bi-polar disorder. I was
> diagnosed YEARS ago as "essentially, John, you are a "natural-born
> HERMIT."
Nothing wrong with being a hermit. Constant socialising has its limitations
;)
>
> I do not LOOK for or ENJOY the company of others!
>
> AGAIN, I am here because I believe God has put me here.
>
> And that is all I can say about that.
>
> I WILL say that the half-d0zen "Christian Chat rooms" I have found
> were
> 1. boring
> 2. non-starters ("What do you want to talk about?" "I don't know! What
> do YOU want to talk about?" "Nothing! I was hoping YOU'd have a
> topic!" "A N Y B O D Y have a topic?"
>
> 3. too many "hecklers" just like in here.
>
> like you're trying to get into "what do you think Titus 2:3 actually
> means? (just for example)
>
> And you get 5
>
> _____ _____ _____ ____ ______ _____, _____ _____
> _____ _____ _____ ____ ______ _____, _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
> ____ ______ _____, _____ _____, _____ _____ _____ ____ ______ _____,
> _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ______ _____, _____ _____!!
>
> (expletives deleted.
>
> And you are left thinking, " I THOUGHT this was a Christian chat
> room!"
Well, talking about separating wheat from chaff, I must admit there are some
posters that I always look for, because they offer thoughtful, reasoned
perspectives rather than mud-slinging. People who can disagree without
beating each other up, in other words ;)
> However, I DO wish you well in your search for "Christian
> company/conversation on-line."
Not really searching for it; as I said, I do pretty well for discussions
about christianity. I was just having a brief snarl about a single post I
happened to come across, and you're right, I probably shouldn't have pounced
on it quite as snappily as I did.
But thanks for the good wishes, it's appreciated.
Jani
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
on 2006-07-30 announced this statement:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:42:14 +0200, Werner -the Christian Agnostic-
>
> Would it then be acceptable for me to apologize?
>
>
>
> I am sincerely sorry if I offended you!
You should apologize to the person *you* really offended, namely
the woman "Elaine".
You see John, I didn't really believe that you were a
*porn-author* as some-one accused you of. Now having read the
*advise* you gave to her, I think you are guilty as charged...
EOD for me on this point.
>
>
> Forgive me!
>
>:-)
>
> God bless!
>
> john w
August 1983......
==============================================================
No. It's inherent in software that you *will* make mistakes, because
a computer program is the most complex machinery ever invented--
essentially every machine-language instruction is a "moving part".
We don't make airplanes with as many moving parts as a Tetris game...
-- Mark Hughes in RASFW
NOs...@no.spam
>LIAR-JOHNNIE claimed!!
>> "You don't agree with a lot of her posts." ???
>>
>> She's certifiably insane!
Sez who, mental case ? YOU?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
You're not qualified to attempt to diagnose ANYONE, loser.
Back to Jani:
>She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
>experience is different.
he's different, all right, Jani. I simply refuse to placate him like
some do, and I continue to expose his disgusting lies and false
representation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - so he despises me
for that.
Welcome back-- long time no se? How R U keeping?
Jani
<NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:ruopc219iria1a6qu...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
[]
>>She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
>>experience is different.
>
> he's different, all right, Jani. I simply refuse to placate him like
> some do, and I continue to expose his disgusting lies and false
> representation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - so he despises me
> for that.
And you know I'm not going to join in the battle, there ;)
>
> Welcome back-- long time no se? How R U keeping?
Fine, thanks. The UK is going through an uncharacteristic heatwave, so we're
all panting a bit, but otherwise, good :)
Jani
NOs...@no.spam
>
><NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
>news:ruopc219iria1a6qu...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>[]
>>>She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
>>>experience is different.
>>
>> he's different, all right, Jani. I simply refuse to placate him like
>> some do, and I continue to expose his disgusting lies and false
>> representation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - so he despises me
>> for that.
>
>And you know I'm not going to join in the battle, there ;)
>
>>
No problem -- I merely said what I did so you understand where I'm
coming from, Jani. While I respect your right to disbelieve, I do
believe ... and weatherless despises me for it, although I know he
will no doubt make up every excuse under God's sun to claim
otherwise......
>> Welcome back-- long time no se? How R U keeping?
>
>Fine, thanks. The UK is going through an uncharacteristic heatwave, so we're
>all panting a bit, but otherwise, good :)
>
>Jani
>
Hot here also ---- but hey -- winter is toooooooooooooo long!!!! :o)
Nicew 2 C U back Jani :o)
>
Jani
Elaine, because that's not my business, but if you approach him with the
understanding that he doesn't communicate or remember in quite the same way
as other people do, that's fine.
Jani
"Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" <wer...@peace-with.all> wrote in
message news:slrnecpi9f...@peace-with.all...
Jani
<NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:43bqc29eoh4lirqo2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:21:31 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
>>news:ruopc219iria1a6qu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>[]
>>>>She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
>>>>experience is different.
>>>
>>> he's different, all right, Jani. I simply refuse to placate him like
>>> some do, and I continue to expose his disgusting lies and false
>>> representation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - so he despises me
>>> for that.
>>
>>And you know I'm not going to join in the battle, there ;)
>>
>>>
> No problem -- I merely said what I did so you understand where I'm
> coming from, Jani. While I respect your right to disbelieve, I do
> believe ... and weatherless despises me for it, although I know he
> will no doubt make up every excuse under God's sun to claim
> otherwise......
Not going there, Elaine. You know that ;-)
>
>>> Welcome back-- long time no se? How R U keeping?
>>
>>Fine, thanks. The UK is going through an uncharacteristic heatwave, so
>>we're
>>all panting a bit, but otherwise, good :)
>>
>>Jani
>>
> Hot here also ---- but hey -- winter is toooooooooooooo long!!!! :o)
You're in the mid-West, yes? or South? (my memory is like a damn sieve,
these days). My son is currently in AZ, and informs me that thanks to the
USian habit of aircon, it's actually more comfortable to be *there* than
*here*. So much for chilly Britain :)
>
> Nicew 2 C U back Jani :o)
I am, apparently, "back" because someone xposted to the Baptist ng. Far as I
knew, I was always here ;-)
Jani
ujb
> Werner - John *does* have a mental disorder. I keep out of his battles with
> Elaine, because that's not my business, but if you approach him with the
> understanding that he doesn't communicate or remember in quite the same way
> as other people do, that's fine.
>
> Jani
That be poor stupid, things go in his head and get all mixed up, or as I
like to say, scrambled...
ujb
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> © 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
> article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
> author
>>
>>news:4s6oc253tm5iv9eam...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:39:47 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>><some snips cos it was getting unwieldy>
>>
>>[]
>>
>>> But what I'm saying, John, is that if Christians
>>>>*themselves* are behaving badly on Usenet,
>>>
>>> #1 Why do you call them "Christians"?
>>> How do you know that EVERYONE in here who calls themselves "Christian"
>>> is one? (names that come to mind that are VERY doubtful would include
>>> CB, Elaine, Jim Agar, Scout Lady)
>>
>>That's true, I don't - but on the whole, people who don't consider
>>themselves christians say so. I don't make any bones about being agnostic,
>>for instance. I do think it's possible for someone to be a christian and
>>behave badly; that just makes them a christian who's currently behaving
>>badly, it doesn't mean they're not a christian.
>>
>
> I didn't realize/remember you're an agnostic.
>
> Let me say this about that. I find that agnosticism is far more
> intellectually honest than atheism, which I consider
> morally/spiritually dishonest.
>
> The atheist can't prove "there is NO God!" And he can't even document
> "there's not even any EVIDENCE that there's a God."
>
> And all the "arguments" and "reasons" they produce that "prove there's
> no proof" are circular. All I've seen anyway.
>
> They all seem to boil down to this: There's no God. So there can't be
> any evidence that there's a God! So even if you are absolutely
> CERTAIN that there's a God, since we already ESTABLISHED that there
> ISN"T one, you must be MISTAKEN about your belief that there's
> 1. a God (there isn't)
> 2. there's evidence (there can't be "evidence" since "everyone knows
> there's no God)
>
> Circular.
>
> (example)
> Since we all know there aren't any garguts, you can't produce any
> evidence that there are actually garguts, because we all know there
> are no garguts.
>
> Problem:
> I have a gargut here in my hand! Look!
>
> Answer:
> You cannot POSSIBLY have a gargut in your hand, because there are no
> garguts. So, NO! I will NOT look at your gargut, because there simply
> aren't any.
>
> ( refusing to look at your gargut)
>
> (an example)
>
> The agnostic (as I understand agnosticism) simply states, honestly, "I
> don't know if there is a God or not. But I am open to any proof you
> might have."
>
> THAT is honesty!
>
> I might add that down through the years, I've had friends of both
> brands!
I don't think atheists are dishonest; they simply don't have gods as part of
their worldview, that's all. I tend more towards the "there are more things
in heaven and earth" view, and it doesn't bother me much whether there are
deities or not, so "agnostic" is a reasonable label.
[]
> but I'd certainly agree that there's more to
>>the christian scriptures than one or two stories.
>
> There you go! I get angry and pop off at someone. One of MY
> weaknesses ("frailties") is my "foul mouth", and I will cuss someone
> out if they push the wrong button (which my detractors and would/be
> tormenters now DELIGHT in doing) like they're playing with a trained
> monkey.
>
> Supposedly, my use of "the King's English" "proves" that I am not a
> Christian. In spite of the fact that my view of Christianity is that
> there's quite a bit of cursing in the Bible, if you know where to
> look!
Well, yes. We originally started this conversation because I said it would
nice if christians didn't use bad language and sexual references on Usenet,
and you - quite rightly - are making the point that such things are part of
christianity. I can't argue with that, at all.
>
>
>>
>>[]
>>
>>> isn't it up to the christians to
>>>>present themselves in a manner which is suitable for children?
>>>
>>> What makes you believe that this is an environment suitable for
>>> children?
>>
>>On the whole, I don't believe that Usenet *is* suitable for young
>>children.
>
> There you go! "By Jove, I think she's got it!"
>
> ;-)
>
>>However, some groups *could* be, if the participants chose to make them
>>so.
>
> Ah, how quick we are to moderate others!
> (good luck with that) or, to quote one of my all time favorite
> films, "In the Heat of the Night", good luck with that, "ya heah?"
Nope, as I said above, you're right and I'm wrong, there.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Like I said, with OBVIOUS atheists, agnostics, demoniacs, (and maybe
>>> even Satan himself) in here, how are "true Christians supposed to
>>> act?"
>>
>>I've had christians treat me (an agnostic) with politeness and courtesy,
>
> Which I hope I'm doing. As long as you treat me nicely (and allow
> some roughness around the edges/ I do not claim to be good with
> people), I will treat you nicely. And if you are 85% nice, I can make
> allowances for the occasional rip.
And I can make allowances for you, so that's good ;)
>
>>whilst remaining firm in their own beliefs. You've done it yourself,
>>although you might not remember.
>
> I dearly hope so. I've been trained by some of the best!
>
> ;-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever actually WATCHED someone cast a demon out of someone?
>>>
>>> VERY CHRISTIAN behavior, but NOT suitable for watching by children!
>>>
>>> I saw part of an exorcism once, before I -- and 500 others -- were
>>> asked to leave the room (to be certain no non-believers would be
>>> there, and so the demon(s) wouldn't have an available body to escape
>>> into)
>>>
>>> Before I left, it got UGLY.
>>>
>>> Christian behavior, but not pretty!
>>
>>Exorcism is very uncommon here in Britain. It seems to be mainly confined
>>to
>>a few small, non-mainstream African christian churches.
>
> Ah! Britain! My homeland! I lived there during VietNam! I was at
> Alconbury, and then I was at Lakenheath.
>
> If you are anywhere close to Alconbury, there's actually a 6th C AD
> church at the main gate (a 5 minute walk from the gate). The
> cornerstone actually says "525 AD". I found out later that the
> inscription is "wrong." Seems "the Roman Catholic church didn't
> invent the AD numbering system until 25 years later!"
>
> Now they have to explain that church! (they explain it by pretending
> it's not there)
>
> ;-)
I think we've been round that one before, and no-one could find the church.
>
> Regarding exorcisms in GB, most "churches" over there likely are so
> liberal they don't believe in demons, so they wouldn't practice
> exorcisms.
Well, there are at least six christian denominations in the village I live
in; exorcism is regarded as rather medieval by all of them, I think.
>
> If you are looking for a good church, at Alconbury (when I was there),
> there was a LARGE Southern Baptist church some 3 miles from the base
> (down the same road the OLD church is on, on the OTHER side of the
> road from the old church.) The old church is on the RIGHT side of the
> road, and looks like an old house, except for the steeple on top.
>
> The BIG newer church is down the road on the LEFT. It's where the
> Brits mix it with the base's Christians.
>
> If you're close, you could check it out. They're real Christians
> there.
>
> Otherwise, look for a Southern Baptist church near you. They're a wee
> bit extreme, but the teaching is solid.
We don't have *Southern* Baptists here; that's an American thang ;) There's
a Baptist church, a Methodist church, a Catholic church, an Anglican church
(very pretty, part Norman with Victorian add-ons) a Congregationalist church
and IIRC a Friends' house. Synagogue up the road, Gurdwara in the next town.
Shortage of mosques, but otherwise we're pretty well catered for.
>
>
> (anti-alcohol, anti-dancing, conservative dress)
Ah, yes, we haven't got a LDS temple either, I forgot that.
>>
>>
>>> How else are
>>>>the children going to gain a positive impression of christianity?
>>>
>>> At church. At home.
>>
>>What of children who are not christian themselves?
>
> You can SEND your children to a good Christian church, or TAKE them,
> if there's one close to you. (it may be a BIT of a drive. But AGAIN,
> look for a Southern Baptist church. They were colonizing the island
> when I was there. )
No, that didn't work; both my daughters went to the parish school, and I
spent a lot of time patiently explaining that not all christians were like
the people who were running the place ;)
>
> See, I don't think that
>>kids should be left to form negative opinions of other cultural /
>>religious
>>/ethnic groups, when it's evident (to me, at least) that all such groups
>>will include good individuals and bad ones.
>
> Well said.
>
> I wouldn't want my kids to base
>>their opinion of the whole of Islam on the small sector of Muslims who are
>>terrorists, for instance.
>
> Exactly.
>
> In fact, just yesterday (Friday, actually), there was a shooting in
> Seattle. A Palestinian Muslim from the Tri-Cities (hundreds of miles
> away) drove all the way to Seattle, bought two pistols on the way,
> broke into a Jewish charity, screamed "I hate Jews!" and shot 6 of
> them, one fatally.
>
> The local Arabs and Palestinians said, "We divorce this guy! We want
> NO part of this violence! There's enough of the violence already!"
>
> He's in jail now. Got an unusually high bail. $5 MILLION.
>
> He's being charged with murder, attempted murder, and a hate crime.
> (hate crimes are SERIOUS business in the US) Plus he grabbed a 13-year
> old little girl who he held at gunpoint to force his way into a secure
> building. (she had access)
>
> So now he gets kidnapping.
There are dangerous nutbars in all cultures, unfortunately.
>>> Try to not "elder the group". I have tried that AND FAILED miserably.
>>
>>Oh, believe me, I'm not. People can and should post as they wish. I'm just
>>commenting on the impression given by some of the posts, that's all.
>
> ( I said that before remembering you're agnostic)
>>
>>
>>>>> You are MORE than welcome to kill file me!
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>Naw, I wouldn't do that.
>>>
>>> Nor would I killfile you. When I catch you in a good mood, you're very
>>> nice.
>>>
>>> And as you may have noticed, when you're nice to me, I'm nice to you.
>>> (one of MY personality flaws/part of my illness is that I find myself
>>> unable to smile when I'm being cursed, accused, or beaten on)
>>
>>Yes, I shouldn't have been snippy with you. I do know that you don't
>>respond
>>well to that, and I should have remembered. My bad.
>
> Well, I hope I responded nicely. I sensed SOME hostility, but you
> were pretty nice, so I let it slide and tried to make a joke of it.
>
> ( I considered it a gentle slap, rather than a punch that knocks teeth
> loose)
> :-)
>
>>
>>[]
>>
>>> but I've said to Elaine that I don't agree with a
>>>>lot of her posts, and she's not had a problem with that.
>>>
>>> "You don't agree with a lot of her posts." ???
>>>
>>> She's certifiably insane!
>>
>>She's always been reasonable and polite with me; I appreciate that your
>>experience is different.
>
> Well, understand that mass murderers are typically "friendly, nice,
> family folk who get along WONDERFULLY with their neighbors."
>
> Elaine and I got along fine until she couldn't tolerate my differences
> of opinion on a dozen issues.
>
> One of her favorite words is "fool!" which she's called me a hundred
> times, (and she's called others)
> in spite of Jesus saying,
>
> 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be
> subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca, '
> is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will
> be in danger of the fire of hell.
>
>
> I and a dozen others have pointed out that her use of the word "fool"
> invites hellfire.
>
> She excuses herself by saying "Jesus meant you can't call Christians
> that, and you're not a Christian!"
>
> She is willing to take that chance to have her own way.
>
> I call her "insane" because if you understand, sane people have a
> sense of self-preservation. They're cautious in many cases "just in
> case". " I won't step out of this blind alley, JUST in case there's
> a car coming."
>
> Elaine has NO sense of self-preservation, NO sense of caution. She's
> the bull in the china shop.
>
> She also throws around a LONG list of RULES for BEHAVIOR that apply to
> EVERYONE but herself.
>
> Jesus said, "before you criticize, look in the mirror." Elaine
> absolutely refuses to self-examine.
>
> And she gets along with many people FINE.
>
> She simply despises ME, so I get all her daily venom.
>
> That's fine! At least she isn't pouring it all over someone she could
> potentially hurt!
>
> ;-)
>
> ( I can take it)
Ooookay - as I've said to both you and Elaine, I'm not taking sides here.
>
>>
>>[]
>>
>>
>>>>> And, see?
>>>>>
>>>>> We have now had a nice conversation!
>>>>
>>>>Heh. We usually do, don't we? :-)
>>>
>>> Frankly, as I have admitted, I have memory issues, and I remember your
>>> NAME VAGUELY.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall nice conversations, and one or two accusations. ??
>>
>>No, we parted on good terms last time.
>
> I meant that I VAGUELY recall some harsh words EARLY in our dialogues.
> Perhaps not.
>
> And I don't want to go BACK, I want to go FORWARD!
>
>>
>>>
>>> However, "today is a new day", and today, I love you and wish only
>>> God's best for you!
>>
>>Thank you.
>
> Yer welcum!
>
> ;-)
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>Seriously, I am careful about what my kids access on the Net, purely and
>>>>simply because I think it's down to *parents* to do that, not rely
>>>>totally
>>>>on net-nanny programs and the like.
>>>
>>> I'm SO glad to hear that!
>>>
>>> When my son finally confessed to me (some 6 months ago) that he'd
>>> been looking at some "soft porn" (naked ladies, as young males will
>>> do) "at a friend's house" (an unsupervised friend's house, I presume)
>>> on their computer...
>>>
>>> I realized, "I can do only so much, and then I must leave my little
>>> boy in God's hands."
>>>
>>> I however, cut him off at the pass. I said, "If you are about to ask
>>> me to show you some hardcore porn on my computer, the answer is "NO!"
>>>
>>> He didn't reply for a moment, and then said, "That isn't what I was
>>> going to ask you."
>>>
>>> And we moved on.
>>
>>Heh. Sensible. How old is your son?
>
> Unfortunately, since I have so many enemies in here, I can't get into
> much detail about that. One such BITTER enemy is in fact ALREADY
> interrupting this conversation.
>
> He's a teen. If he'd been a pre-teen, I'd have called the police on
> his friend, and on his mother.
>
>
> I assume he's a teenager?
>
> Yes.
>
> If the worst
>>thing he's up to is looking at a few nekkid ladies, he's obviously not a
>>bad
>>lad ...
>
> Yes, of course, there are those "Christians" in here who would CLAIM
> that they've never looked at nekkid ladies in magazines.
>
> "right"
>
> liars all!
The nekkid ladies are not a big deal; lads who can look at a boob or a
buttock and say "yeah, pretty" and then go on to other stuff are a *lot*
healthier than the ones who say "ohmygawd I can see flesh! shock-horror!"
and then end up attacking someone who's dared to reveal an ankle.
>
> I can remember going to my pastor when I was in my 30s. I was single,
> and I confessed, Dr _____, I am having a problem! I find I can't
> resist buying a Penthouse every month. I just can't get past this
> BURNING need to look at naked women!"
>
> My pastor chuckled. "John, you scared me for a minute! I thought you
> were going to tell me you were looking at pictures of naked men! I'd
> have a problem with THAT! Go enjoy your Penthouse! That urge is
> God-given, m' boy!"
>
> Now THERE was an understanding, kind-hearted pastor.
How would you have felt if you were gay, though, and it actually was
pictures of naked men that you wanted to see? The pastor wouldn't have been
very understanding or kind under those circumstances.
>
> And when I DID ask my son if he'd seen any "hard porn", he said, "not
> interested."
>
> I wasn't offering, but I liked his answer. So we're good.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I also think it's genuinely sad that
>>>>religious ngs, and especially christian ones, have to be on the list of
>>>>"things you're not allowed". You see my point?
>>>
>>> As I said, dear, I have been complaining about that for YEARS. And
>>> MANY have come in here asking if there truly ARE CHRISTIAN chat rooms
>>> anywhere?
>>>
>>> I personally am not interested. Nor am I interested in THIS place
>>> particularly. I have reasons to be in here, but it has nothing to do
>>> with "fun". I am here-- to put it tactfully, and not spill my beans--
>>> because God has put me here.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>
> post your e-mail, and we'll talk about it.
>
>>
>>> But-- YES-- I FULLY agree, there should be Christian chat rooms.
>>>
>>> In that light, I HIGHly recommend that you search for SPECIFICALLY
>>> "Christian Chat" in half-a-dozen engines, including Goggle.
>>>
>>> DO be aware, however, that the Internet-- like the world-- is NOT
>>> necessarily friendly towards your idea.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>>As it happens, we have family friends who are christian, and are very
>>knowledgeable about the faith.
>
> If you hadn't picked up on it, I am an elder, and I've had both
> seminary and LOTS of training "at the knee" of some 2 dozen scholars.
> You and I might have some VERY interesting chats, and I could likely
> answer some questions for your kids as well.
>
> I might brag a little on me.
>
> I have several Muslim friends in my building. So far, 2 of them have
> told me that they find me VERY knowledgeable, and that I am the first
> Christian they've talked to who was able to answer all their
> questions, and "make it all make sense.'
>
> They had gotten too many "I don't know's" until I came along.
>
> In the right light, Christianity actually makes a LOT of sense.
> One who convince ME of MANY things is one of your countrymen, Dr Clive
> S Lewis, "Mere Christianity."
>
> That book is a CLASSIC.
Yes, I like CS Lewis. Given his personal habits, I'm not sure I'd have
wanted him in the house, but I like his writing.
>
>
>
>
> So my own kids aren't "deprived" of
>>discussions about christianity (or about other faiths, if it comes to
>>that).
>
> Very good. I studied comparative religion in church for many years
> (with scholar pastors), and then took it in seminary
>
>
>>Not everyone is so lucky, though.
>
> Very true. Many don't have pastors who are scholars. I have not had a
> pastor yet who didn't have half-a-dozen Ph Ds after his name and a Dr
> in front.
>
>>
>>
>>> And-- to put it frankly-- you may have detected by now that I am not a
>>> particularly "social creature". That's the bi-polar disorder. I was
>>> diagnosed YEARS ago as "essentially, John, you are a "natural-born
>>> HERMIT."
>>
>>Nothing wrong with being a hermit. Constant socialising has its
>>limitations
>>;)
>
> lol !!
>
> Actually, I miss human company/companionship. But I have not been
> blessed in that regard. So I have learned to be "best friends with me"
"Know thyself". The examined life. Etc. Being best friends with yourself is
not a bad thing, at all.
<snipped the rest, because I think we've been round that already>
:)
Jani
Jani
"ujb" <u...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:etidnYlk7-A21VDZ...@comcast.com...
Yes, and? he doesn't claim to be sane, does he?
Jani
ujb
"Yes" completes it.
> he doesn't claim to be sane, does he?
Sane, none of are 100%! But no matter what he claims I am of the opinion
he is sane enough, and using the system as a way of getting back at his
ex wife. He worked until she laid papers on him, now he is sick living
on under age disability SS!
ujb
>
> Jani
* irenic *
<>
> Exorcism is very uncommon here in Britain. It seems to be mainly confined
> to a few small, non-mainstream African christian churches.
Jani if you substitute the roughly synonymous expression 'deliverance'
you'll find that *most* non-
African Pentecostal, and a significant number of charismatic churches would
have engaged in this practice - yes, in Britain.
Read The Bible
> the right spirit, maybe it's some other bad spirit
> that pretends to the good one
Excellent question, for Satan himself can appear as
an angel of light (2Cor.11:14). A Satanic spirit will
always try to keep you from the Word of God (Mk.4:15);
and it will say that Jesus himself isn't the Christ
(1Jn.2:22), and that Christ himself didn't come in the
flesh (1Jn.4:3). It will always preach another gospel
than the true one that Jesus Christ died on the cross
for our sins and rose from the dead on the 3rd day
(1Cor.15:1-4, Gal.1:6-9). And the doctrines of devils
include the ideas that marriage is evil and eating
meat is evil (1Tim.4:1-5). Basically, an evil spirit
will always try to turn someone away from the Bible
and toward fables that sound good (2Tim.4:2-4),
including "science falsely so called " (1Tim.6:20).
Here "science" is "gnosis" and so can refer directly
to the demonic doctrines of Gnosticism, but "gnosis"
can also simply mean "knowledge"; demons will always
try to give people purported "knowledge" or "science"
that contradicts what the Bible says.
And people will grasp at any such "knowledge" or
"science" in their desire to escape the rule of
God over their lives. They want to do what they want,
not what God wants, and so will accept without any
scrutiny anything that in the slightest way might
go against God's Word; while they will fight tooth
and nail against anything that in the slightest way
might show that the Word of God is true. But, in
the end, all they are left with is their incredible
variety of sins which they have invented in a
desperate attempt to fill the void left in their heart
by their rejection of God (Rom.1:19-32). But believers
can't judge "them", because "them" is us (Rom.3:9-23),
apart from God's miraculous intervention in our lives
(Eph.2:1-8).
---
> Eric said on 7/25 11:06p: I know it's the right
> spirit because it's the spirit in my heart. There is
> only one spirit in my heart and in everyone's heart.
> There is no other.
We can never trust our own hearts (Prov.28:26, 14:12).
There is a Satanic "spirit of disobedience" that can
dwell in our hearts and rule our lives (Eph.2:2-3),
making us slaves to various sins (Jn.8:34-37,
Rom.6:16-23). Some have even become so deceived that
they think God is the one whispering in their ears
to commit this or that sin, when nothing could be
further from the truth (Jas.1:13-15). Only Jesus
Christ can deliver us from the deceiving power of
Satan and sin (1Jn.3:5-10, Act.26:18, 2Tim.2:25-26).
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> [ I apologize Elaine! I just scratched my butt again!]
>
>>
>>You see John, I didn't really believe that you were a
>>*porn-author* as some-one accused you of.
>
> there is "porn' in the Bible, if you read Hebrew.
Its a obscure book, and its author is not known :-)
>
> And the "romance novels" that have flooded a certain segment of the
> market are "mass market" "feminine POV porn."
Ah I see and this all gives you as a Christian the right to tell
a woman how to masturbate?
>
>
> Now having read the
>>*advise* you gave to her, I think you are guilty as charged...
>
> "Guilty?" hardly.
>
> But you are certainly entitled to be a narrow-minded bigot!
Now this is really funny, John but I know when you can`t win
arguments, this is your last resort.
>
>
>>
>>EOD for me on this point.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive me!
>>>
>>>:-)
>>>
>>> God bless!
>>>
>>> john w
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus put it this way:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Seek and you shall find."
>>>>
>>>>Sorry what I'm seeking I haven't found in any of your posts.
>>>>So knowing that not much has changed I'll *ignore* you again.
>>>>If you feel worthwhile you may respond, just know I'll may be
>>>>not reading it...
>>>>
>>>>I'm just wondering if you gave the following advice to another
>>>>single Christian mom?
>>>>
>>>>== quote:
>>>>>>>>>Go warm up your vibrator, darlin',
>>>>>>>>>be sure the batteries are fresh,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and then have sexual intercourse with yourself!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(You must have the strongest wrists in Canada. You know! From all that
>>>>>>>>>vibrator action! )
>>>>
>>>>== end quote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Werner Kurator
>>>
>>
>>
>>Werner Kurator
>
Werner Kurator
===========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
==============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
==============================================================
--
Some days violence is just a nice quick solution
to a problem that would need thought, planning and
actual work to do justice to."
-- Wayne Pascoe
NOs...@no.spam
Kurator <wer...@peace-with.all> wrote:
>
>Now this is really funny, John but I know when you can`t win
>arguments, this is your last resort.
Actually, liar-johnnie's last resort is either gutter-mouthed
profanities tossed at his perceived enemies, sexual slurs, or both.
James
>Re: Science and God
>
>
>James wrote:
>
>> > Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>
>> >Re: Science and God
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >AJA wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've said this before here, but again, I see nothing in science which would
>> >> preclude belief in God. I'm not a strict Biblical literalist, but believe
>> >> that Scripture is inspired by God. But that science and faith inform each
>> >> other. (Say it's all in Plato- or Aristotle)
>> >> A couple of points, which btw some of my scientist acquaintances agree with.
>> >> Science is the observation (ours) of the workings of a remarkable creation.
>> >> It is difficult to maintain that the existing highly complicated conditions
>> >> allowing for our existence has no purpose.
>> >> If science intends to postulate a purpose for the cosmos and the existence
>> >> of life in that cosmos, and sentience/consciousness, then science has to
>> >> think out of the box somehow.
>> >> There is that pesky beginning point. Why begin at all, and all those other
>> >> questions about the beginning. Why can we observe it at all?
>> >> Why do all organisms have a 'use'?
>> >> 'Faith' is an important part of the scientific process.
>> >> Faith that can't consider science and science that negates/ignores faith is
>> >> half baked. Science is not mere experimentation as the observation part
>> >> requires a thought process with elements closely akin to faith.
>> >> Matthew's Aristotle sig quote is accurate.
>> >
>> >How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years) with the
>> >timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion years)?
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> How do you define the "Creation timeline"? Do you mean how old the
>> earth and universe is?
>
>Yes.
Hello,
Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.
If you have a Bible, find Genesis 1:1. This is the first mention of
the creation of the universe. (which includes the earth) It should
read something like:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Notice it doesn't say when the earth was created, nor how long it took
God to make it. It simply acknowledges that God made it. (and the rest
of the universe)
Starting with verse 2, this already created earth of verse 1 is being
prepared for eventual human habitation. The writer of Genesis divides
those time periods up into unspecified periods of time called a "day",
and gives a total of 6 creative 'days' to complete the project.
Thus if science says that the earth and universe are billions of years
old, then the Bible would have no problem with those figures, since it
doesn't say one way or the other. And based on the sciences that God
gave us, the evidence overwhelmingly points to an 'old earth'.
Where some people become confused, is when they try to put verse 1
with verses 2 and 3, and thus make verse 1 part of the "first day".
(Ge 2:3) They then do computations and come up with the concept that
the earth's age is in thousands of years, instead of billions of
years. But the error is to put verse 1 with the "first day" verses.
So in conclusion, based on verse one, God did not inform us of when,
or how long, He took to create the earth (or the stellar universe),
thus the Bible does not contradict true science there.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
ZenIsWhen
news:k0fje25gknq9s8fdm...@4ax.com...
"gawddidit" doesn't contradict "true scince" either - but it is just as
empty and meaningless as what you offer.
>
> If you have a Bible, find Genesis 1:1. This is the first mention of
> the creation of the universe. (which includes the earth) It should
> read something like:
>
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
>
> Notice it doesn't say when the earth was created, nor how long it took
> God to make it. It simply acknowledges that God made it. (and the rest
> of the universe)
So if you admit nothing, nothing can be held against you.
Why is it sdo many other "christians" disagree with your edited
initerpretation? Is everyone else wrong?
>
> Starting with verse 2, this already created earth of verse 1 is being
> prepared for eventual human habitation. The writer of Genesis divides
> those time periods up into unspecified periods of time called a "day",
> and gives a total of 6 creative 'days' to complete the project.
>
> Thus if science says that the earth and universe are billions of years
> old, then the Bible would have no problem with those figures, since it
> doesn't say one way or the other. And based on the sciences that God
> gave us, the evidence overwhelmingly points to an 'old earth'.
Where is any evidence that your imaginary gawd "gave" us anything?
or was that in the evening and the morning of the 34th day?
>
> Where some people become confused, is when they try to put verse 1
> with verses 2 and 3, and thus make verse 1 part of the "first day".
> (Ge 2:3) They then do computations and come up with the concept that
> the earth's age is in thousands of years, instead of billions of
> years. But the error is to put verse 1 with the "first day" verses.
IOW they erred by not contorting it to your way of thinking (?).
>
> So in conclusion, based on verse one, God did not inform us of when,
> or how long, He took to create the earth (or the stellar universe),
> thus the Bible does not contradict true science there.
Whooppeeeee .... a fairy tale book does not contradict reality based
science!
James
>Re: Faith and Science
>On 25 Jul 2006 18:40:39 -0700, Angelin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>The point is that if Bible is not inspired by God, then what makes it
>>different than any other book. Koran, Theravada, Book of Mormon or
>>Confucian Writings they all talk about spiritual thing too.
>
>So which one is correct?
Hello,
If you are asking me, the Bible. But if you ask a Muslim, the Koran
etc. But here are some of the reasons I choose the Bible, even after
looking at some of those others.
If God is going to judge humans on how good they obey Him, then
somewhere there must be a place that tells humans what He wants us to
do. Otherwise He could not hold us accountable for disobeying Him.
Interestingly, there is a religious book that is the most published
book in the world. It is in every country, and is accessible almost
anywhere in the language of the people. That book is not the Muslim
Koran, or the Vedas of Hinduism, etc. It is the Bible. As the World
Book Encyclopedia says:
"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
book."
Thus that would logically be a place to start if one is trying to
track down the true religion.
But what if the most distributed book in history was about the tooth
fairy or something. Are we to believe it just because it is so
widespread around the world? Of course not. There must also be more
'evidences'.
The information in that book supposedly from God, would have to seem
reasonable (leaving out the miracles for the moment), and be practical
and beneficial to use. It should promote good morals, but not be
extreme in them. And it would help if science and history could verify
some of its information relating to them. The Bible is all of the
above.
Also, unlike other ancient historians, the Bible gives us candid
accounts of the faults of its servants of God, and well as their
strengths etc. For example, a king, King David of Israel, said at 2 Sa
24:10,
"And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people.
And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have
done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy
servant; for I have done very foolishly." (KJV)
Thus the Bible deserves being investigated by those searching for a
true religion among the many. It has many earmarks of being the true
religion of God.
ZenIsWhen
> >Falcon <Falco...@verizzon.com>
>>Re: Faith and Science
>
>>On 25 Jul 2006 18:40:39 -0700, Angelin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>The point is that if Bible is not inspired by God, then what makes it
>>>different than any other book. Koran, Theravada, Book of Mormon or
>>>Confucian Writings they all talk about spiritual thing too.
>>
>>So which one is correct?
>
> Hello,
>
> If you are asking me, the Bible. But if you ask a Muslim, the Koran
> etc. But here are some of the reasons I choose the Bible, even after
> looking at some of those others.
>
> If God is going to judge humans on how good they obey Him, then
> somewhere there must be a place that tells humans what He wants us to
> do. Otherwise He could not hold us accountable for disobeying Him.
>
> Interestingly, there is a religious book that is the most published
> book in the world. It is in every country, and is accessible almost
> anywhere in the language of the people. That book is not the Muslim
> Koran, or the Vedas of Hinduism, etc. It is the Bible. As the World
> Book Encyclopedia says:
Missing the point that you must believe that that bible is something more
than a collection of fairy tales.
Where do you find the claim that the bible is more than a bunch of fairy
tales? - in the bible, of course.
>
> "The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
> been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
> book."
Popularity has nothing to do with validity.
Biblical christianity is NOT the most popular religon.
Being "in a book" has nothing to do with validity. (Other, ancient religious
beliefs were - percentage wise, in the known world - more popular than the
bible - and they did it without the printing press and books)
>
> Thus that would logically be a place to start if one is trying to
> track down the true religion.
>
> But what if the most distributed book in history was about the tooth
> fairy or something. Are we to believe it just because it is so
> widespread around the world? Of course not. There must also be more
> 'evidences'.
>
> The information in that book supposedly from God, would have to seem
> reasonable (leaving out the miracles for the moment), and be practical
> and beneficial to use. It should promote good morals, but not be
> extreme in them. And it would help if science and history could verify
> some of its information relating to them. The Bible is all of the
> above.
A Victorian "Social Primer" is the same.
Any collection of society rules and behaviors is the same.
Even "Star Trek" has many moral; lessons.
The "bible" did NOT INVENT these things - they are merely a collection of
positive and scieal negative actions that were already widely known.
>
> Also, unlike other ancient historians, the Bible gives us candid
> accounts of the faults of its servants of God, and well as their
> strengths etc. For example, a king, King David of Israel, said at 2 Sa
> 24:10,
Say WHAT?
Obviosuly you are looking for any shred of meaningless, irrational trivia
(without the advantage of an education in other religons) to support your
own delusional beliefs.
>
> "And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people.
> And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have
> done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy
> servant; for I have done very foolishly." (KJV)
>
> Thus the Bible deserves being investigated by those searching for a
> true religion among the many. It has many earmarks of being the true
> religion of God.
Only if anyone is stupid enough to believe that a moronic idiot, like you,
even has the brain to decided what is valid and what is invalid.
terry
James wrote in message ...
James,
Interesting thoughts. Another important, but many times overlooked area of
consideration is that "assuming there is a God" (and only a fool will deny
this) and that God would desire to communicate His Truth to Man via the
Holy Spirit, the Bible is the only book which the Holy Spirit will witness
to its' truth and validity. Therefore, for a man to choose another book as
God's objective truth only reveals his distance from the Holy Spirit's
testimony through the hardness of his own sinful heart.
Many can argue and do a good job with the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
However, when one understands that God leads men to repentence, then we
know that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in grasping, arresting and
drawing a man's heart, we do not come to the spiritual Truth concerning the
Scriptures, God, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc...
Finally, this means that the Holy Spirit makes the distinction between the
Scriptures and say, the Koran, book or Mormon, etc.... The witness to the
latter writings will come from foreign and religious spirits (demons).
Hmmmm...I just noticed in your sig that you promote the 'watchtower.' This
is another example of demonic activity through self-righteous and religious
works. I pray you haven't embraced this heresy with your heart.
Terry Ivy
Pastor Dale K. Whangke
> Finally, this means that the Holy Spirit makes the distinction between the
> Scriptures and say, the Koran, book or Mormon, etc....
There is only one true Bible - the KJV. All others are of the devil!
Be blessed
--
Pastor Dale K. Whangke
Wyrst Pentacostal Church
http://mypage.cooeey.com/DaleKWhangke
James
>Re: Science and God
>In article <449D1A11...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
>Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years) with the
>>timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion years)?
>
>Not all, by any means, of those who belive in a Divine Creation,
>believe it happened only a few thousand years ago.
>
>Just the other day, I saw a program with Hugh Ross (on Trinity
>Broadcasting Network, of all things) talking about life having
>existed on Earth for 3.8 billion years.
>
>(I removed mn.humor from the crosspost... mn.humor? Huh??!?)
Hello,
The Bible does not say that God created the earth etc, only a few
thousand years ago. That conclusion is mistakenly derived by combining
the first verse of Genesis with the 'first day' verses.
Here is the first place in the Bible where it discusses God creating
the universe. Ge 1:1,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Notice it doesn't say when the earth was created, nor how long it took
God to make it. It simply acknowledges that God made it. (and the rest
of the universe)
Starting with verse 2, this already created earth of verse 1 is being
prepared for eventual human habitation. The writer of Genesis divides
those time periods up into unspecified periods of time called a "day",
and gives a total of 6 creative 'days' to complete the project.
Thus if science says that the earth and universe are billions of years
old, then the Bible would have no problem with those figures, since it
doesn't say one way or the other. And based on the sciences that God
gave us, the evidence overwhelmingly points to an 'old earth'.
Brian
problem. Here is one of several books on the topic.
Brian
John Ockerbloom
James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
>Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
>billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
>contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.
Actually, Genesis 1 read as a timeline, though popular with some
Christian groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses), doesn't match
the findings of science.
Here I'm not just talking about discrepancies obvious to laypeople,
such as the sun not showing up until day 4 (which requires some rather
creative interpretations by followers of "day-age" doctrine), but
discrepancies which are obvious to biologists but might get missed by
laypeople, like fruit-bearing plants showing up in day 3. (They're
actually quite a late stage in plant evolution, and didn't appear until
well after land animals did, which in Genesis 1 doesn't happen until day 6.)
For more details about ordering discrepancies between Genesis 1 and
scientific findings, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html
There are of course other ways of reading Genesis 1
that don't contradict modern science, but they tend to be
much less literal than the timeline reading, and don't treat Genesis
as if it were a scientific text. (I'm not sure what the problem
is supposed to be with not reading it as scientific, especially given the
documented fondness of Christianity's founder for teaching through parables
that virtually no one assumes should be read literally.
I don't think CS Lewis, to bring this thread on-topic for one
of the groups this is crossposted to, read the early chapters of Genesis
in that literalistic a way either.) But straightforward
timeline interpretations of Genesis 1 do in fact contradict
present scientific knowledge.
John Mark Ockerbloom
--
Due to excessive spam, the email address shown in this post is invalid.
If you need to reach me by email, see http://pobox.upenn.edu/~ockerblo/
for my current contact information.
Pastor Dave
Ockerbloom) spake thusly:
>In article <k0fje25gknq9s8fdm...@4ax.com>,
>James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
>>Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
>>billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
>>contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.
>
>Actually, Genesis 1 read as a timeline, though popular with some
>Christian groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses), doesn't match
>the findings of science.
True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"At all events, we should say, in summing up, that,
according to everything taught by the exact sciences
about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny
planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order
prevails - one independent of the human mind. Yet,
in so far as we are able to ascertain through our
senses, this order can be formulated in terms of
purposeful activity. There is evidence of an
intelligent order of the universe." - Max Planck
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <h437f2phqshprlftp...@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
>You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
So have you decided that scientific correction is the power of God
unto salvation, instead of the gospel?
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).
• Daily devotionals • Community forum
• Bible questions and answers • Live chatting
• Free at www.pulpitfire.org
Funny Usenet Quotes:
What do you think fog is? Fog is essentially a dense cloud
of water droplets, or cloud, that is close to the ground, so
don't tell me, "clouds are in the sky"...--Pastor Dave
(mjrgv1pdc31bue50i...@4ax.com)
Pastor Dave
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:39:18 GMT,
> in article <h437f2phqshprlftp...@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
>>You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
>
>
>So have you decided that scientific correction is the power of God
>unto salvation, instead of the gospel?
Thank you Randy, for showing just how desperate you are
to attack me. Here I am, defending the Scriptures and you
decide that's a reason to attack me. (:
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
Lord, help me get up when I fall. I can fall by myself.
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:41:03 +0000 (UTC), sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John
> Ockerbloom) spake thusly:
>
> >In article <k0fje25gknq9s8fdm...@4ax.com>,
> >James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
> >>Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
> >>billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
> >>contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.
> >
> >Actually, Genesis 1 read as a timeline, though popular with some
> >Christian groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses), doesn't match
> >the findings of science.
>
> True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
===>RIDICULOUS!
You decide what "true science" is on the basis of
agreement with ancient Semitic fables???? -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter B. Juul
> True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
> You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
Ah yes.
I knew we'd get the "no true scotsman"-argument really soon, when the
term "true science" popped up.
How do I distinguish true science from mere science? Is it a bit like
distinguishing true christianity from mere christianity?
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "All great epics come to an end. The Iliad. The
The RockBear. ((^)) Odyssey. War and Peace. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I speak only 0}._.{0 Just kidding. The Tolstoy book is a ringer.
for myself. O/ \O Doesn't belong on this list. Too literal.
Not enough monsters." - New York Newsday
Pastor Dave
Juul) spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>> True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
>> You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
>
>Ah yes.
>
>I knew we'd get the "no true scotsman"-argument really soon, when the
>term "true science" popped up.
>
>How do I distinguish true science from mere science? Is it a bit like
>distinguishing true christianity from mere christianity?
You equate the opinions of men with "true science".
You make gods out of them, incapable of error.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2006 11:25:20 +0200, p...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
> Juul) spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >> True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
> >> You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
> >
> >Ah yes.
> >
> >I knew we'd get the "no true scotsman"-argument really soon, when the
> >term "true science" popped up.
> >
> >How do I distinguish true science from mere science? Is it a bit like
> >distinguishing true christianity from mere christianity?
>
> You equate the opinions of men with "true science".
> You make gods out of them, incapable of error.
===>YOU LIE! No one does that.
However, you DO make a god out of some thoughts and fancy
images in your mind!
That is IDOLATRY! -- L.
bob young
James wrote:
And the god which created everything left it to the humans he created in his own
image to grapple with the real meaning - wonderful !
Do you ever think whilst you struggle to prop up your myth ?
Do you ever acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of recorded gods in history
plus possibly tens of thousands more from the unrecorded period when man was
struggling both before and after the Stone Age?
You are unable to work out that these early humans trembled in their shelters in the
darkness each night waiting for the dawn hearing noises in the forest that they
feared were 'evil spirits'. Is it such a leap of intelligence to realize that the
subsequent 'gods' that man dreamed up were so created to chase away these imaginary
evil spirits ?!
These simple early gods were the forerunners of today's sophisticated religions, but
simply because they have millions of followers instead of a few hundred does not
alter the fact that all gods are the creation of homo sapiens, like it or not.
Groan
Bob
"The Ethiop gods have Ethiop lips, Bronze cheeks, and woolly hair; The Grecian gods
are like the Greeks, As keen-eyed, cold and fair."
[Walter Bagehot]
bob young
James wrote:
> >m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt)
> >Re: Science and God
>
> >In article <449D1A11...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
> >Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >>How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years) with the
> >>timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion years)?
> >
> >Not all, by any means, of those who belive in a Divine Creation,
> >believe it happened only a few thousand years ago.
> >
> >Just the other day, I saw a program with Hugh Ross (on Trinity
> >Broadcasting Network, of all things) talking about life having
> >existed on Earth for 3.8 billion years.
> >
> >(I removed mn.humor from the crosspost... mn.humor? Huh??!?)
>
> Hello,
>
> The Bible does not say that God created the earth etc, only a few
> thousand years ago. That conclusion is mistakenly derived by combining
> the first verse of Genesis with the 'first day' verses.
Cosy that. You live in 2006 after archeology determined the age of the earth and
the early living creatures.
if you had been living in the year 200
we would not have heard a 'peep' out of you !
How many times have bible meanings been modified to keep in step with the steady
march of scientific progress?
Bob
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,
[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
bob young
John Ockerbloom wrote:
> In article <k0fje25gknq9s8fdm...@4ax.com>,
> James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:
> >Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
> >billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
> >contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.
>
> Actually, Genesis 1 read as a timeline, though popular with some
> Christian groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses), doesn't match
> the findings of science.
The Bible is full of absurdities
simply because it was written
over two thousand years ago by supertitious
frightened homo sapiens
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:44:10 -0500, www.pulpitfire.org
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:39:18 GMT,
> > in article <h437f2phqshprlftp...@4ax.com>,
> > Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
> >>You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
> >
> >
> >So have you decided that scientific correction is the power of God
> >unto salvation, instead of the gospel?
>
> Thank you Randy, for showing just how desperate you are
> to attack me. Here I am, defending the Scriptures and you
> decide that's a reason to attack me. (:
WOW not another 'atheist' then Frank ?
bob young
"Peter B. Juul" wrote:
> Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
> > True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
> > You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
>
> Ah yes.
>
> I knew we'd get the "no true scotsman"-argument really soon, when the
> term "true science" popped up.
>
> How do I distinguish true science from mere science? Is it a bit like
> distinguishing true christianity from mere christianity?
Well. 'True Christianity' is the thing they have been preaching to
establish for over two thousand years. [you know; those 'truth' sermons
that crop up about three times a year]
'Mere Christianity' is simply a name on 'The list of gods that man has
created over the last two million years'
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2006 11:25:20 +0200, p...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
> Juul) spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >> True science does not disagree with the Biblical account.
> >> You confuse the claims of men with actual fact.
> >
> >Ah yes.
> >
> >I knew we'd get the "no true scotsman"-argument really soon, when the
> >term "true science" popped up.
> >
> >How do I distinguish true science from mere science? Is it a bit like
> >distinguishing true christianity from mere christianity?
>
> You equate the opinions of men with "true science".
> You make gods out of them, incapable of error.
And gods do not err - like those terrible grossly deformed human fetus
that arrive about one in every 400,000 births, so gross the mother is not
even allowed to see it?
Oh YES 'the gods' are indeed free from error.
Peter B. Juul
> Well. 'True Christianity' is the thing they have been preaching to
> establish for over two thousand years. [you know; those 'truth' sermons
> that crop up about three times a year]
>
> 'Mere Christianity' is simply a name on 'The list of gods that man has
> created over the last two million years'
Ah. My bad. I read and replied in alt.books.cs-lewis without noting
that I was cross-posting to several of those groups that seems to
attract nitwits by the shipload.
Instead of displaying your absurd lack of knowledge of that of which
you speak, DO shut up and go learn a bit first. Please. You don't even
make sense.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "15000 atheists in London rioted today
The RockBear. ((^)) after a blank sheet of paper was found
I speak only 0}._.{0 on a cartoonist's desk"
for myself. O/ \O -anon.