The Christian Question - Please Submit Your View!
ac...@my-deja.com
Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
proof do you have to support your case?
Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
science and Atheism)?
Please submit your answers as soon as you can!
In truth and freedom,
Acey.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dave Stone
important questions relating to Christianity there are.
Have you a few months to wait for your answers?! ;o)
Georg Heinrich
> Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in?
Yes it is.
> Why/why not?
It is man's destination provided by God.
> What proof do you have to support your case?
There is no objective proof. It is only prooved subjectively by personal
experience.
> Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> Atheist community. Is this true?
Yes.
> Why/why not?
Science relies axioms that have to exclude God or at least his
intervention in the processes described by science. Science is
impossible without these axioms.
> If this is true, what makes Christianity so un-scientific,
Christianity has a different approach to cognition. Cognition comes from
revelation which occurs in the contemplation with God's word. The
cognition comes to life when the believer acts upon it. The cognition is
then prooved by experience.
> and what evidence do you have to discount Creation?
This is the wrong question. To be un-scientific does not mean to be
un-true.
Since science relies on its axioms, it is also limited by its axioms.
Science can make no valid statement about anything that is excluded by
its axioms, so it can make no valid statement about anything that
concerns God.
There is no evidence against creation. Evolution is a good alternative
theory, but is not proven to be the origin of life. I think there is no
proof possible to be found for or against it.
> If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
As said above, science can make no statements about the christian
belief.
> Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> (with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> science and Atheism)?
Christianity will prevail.
Bye,
Georg
Dave Stone
thread!
> > What proof do you have to support your case?
>
> There is no objective proof. It is only prooved subjectively by personal
> experience.
I wonder if perhaps there was some other race, also created by God, and
if they contacted us and told us all about it, if that would be
considered proof?
> > If this is true, what makes Christianity so un-scientific,
>
> Christianity has a different approach to cognition. Cognition comes from
> revelation which occurs in the contemplation with God's word. The
> cognition comes to life when the believer acts upon it. The cognition is
> then prooved by experience.
So the term "Christian science" is an error...?
> Since science relies on its axioms, it is also limited by its axioms.
And similarly is Christianity limited by it's doctrine/orthodoxy.
Any group of theorists has their limitation(s), it seems.
> Science can make no valid statement about anything that is excluded by
> its axioms, so it can make no valid statement about anything that
> concerns God.
Good point!
So are we saying that science and faith *are* incompatible?
> There is no evidence against creation. Evolution is a good alternative
> theory, but is not proven to be the origin of life. I think there is no
> proof possible to be found for or against it.
However, again, *purely hypothetically* some alien could come along and
show us all the records/videos/experiments and say that it was actually
they who put us here.
Obviously I don't believe that for even a nanosecond! I'm just trying to
show that a sort of proof could be reached about our origins.
> > If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> > Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
> As said above, science can make no statements about the christian
> belief.
You know, you may have killed this thread before it even began! ;o)
> Christianity will prevail.
But to what end? Old Joe Satanist round the corner believes that if
someone hits him in the face, he should strike back with the same
force... that's his right, his opinion, for he is free. Would this right
be taken from him in an ultimate Christian world?
Furthermore, free will includes that we may choose to do evil, or wrong,
but would this freedom be included in the new Christian world? I mean,
you might say that all the temptation would be removed but then a
massive amount of the world would have to removed. The nature of earth
itself leads to temptation - the physical pleasures of living in a
physical body are strong.
Or would they be removed too?
And if so, is this paradise? Because it sounds to me like a return to
the same simpleness of Adam and Eve. This may sound good to you, but
there are some who live for the pursuit of new wisdom, and that joy of
saying "I just learned something new!" I would not like to give this up.
Christians speak of God's coming paradise, but to both evil *and* good
men, this paradise would seem little removed from hell. Put simply, you
cannot please everybody. If there was one thing that would please
everybody, it would be because all of those people were so similar to
one another, in which case there would be no fun. Life would be a
program - a purposeless continuation of mundanity.
Or do I have it wrong? Please describe for me the paradise your faith
envisions, and what it might mean for me?
Regards,
~ Dave Stone.
hehehe
ac...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lf2dj$5a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I know this may cause a bit of a stir-up, but here we go...
>
>proof do you have to support your case?
No. Christianity is merely the survivor of a number of other religions that
orginated in classical civilization. Through historical accident, and
perhaps even Darwinistic processes, it became the official,
institutionalized religion in the west. Elsewhere in the world, different
belief systems became dominent. There is no objective reason to believe in
xianity than any other religion.
>
>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
>makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
>discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
>Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
Xianity isn't a science. It isn't falisfiable. It wasn't formed in a
scientific environment, and has little to do with science. Therefore, one
can not call it "science" or "scientific".
The Theory of Evolution is the product of the scientific method, which mean
it holds temporary acendacy over other theories of our origin. There is no
scientific evidence for creationism whatsoever: it is the product of
religious fundamentalists who are in denial over the shortcomings of their
philospophy.
>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
>science and Atheism)?
Who knows? Mankind has stubbornly believed nonsense for centuries. There
is no reason to believe this will change anytime soon.
KatieDean
seen the effects of the wind, but i've never seen the wind."
-"MIND'S EYE" dcTalk from the albulm Jesus Freak
Peter Walker
<kd...@prairietech.net> wrote:
>"Can you see God? Have you ever seen him?.....I've never see the wind. I've
>seen the effects of the wind, but i've never seen the wind."
Well, I can tell the effects of wind by comparing them to the effects
of no wind.
Perhaps you'll be kind enough to tell us the difference between a
universe with a god and a universe without a god. Please be specific
and quantitative. Show all work.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | EMAIL: p...@spacsun.rice.edu
Rice University | WWW: http://spac-201.rice.edu/
Dept. of Space Physics & Astronomy | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
JulieKale
>"Can you see God? Have you ever seen him?.....I've never see the wind.
I've
>seen the effects of the wind, but i've never seen the wind."
>
DCTalk. LOL. (wannabes...)
Here's a thought. No brainer, okay?
You can FEEL the wind.
You RUN TESTS to determine the existance of the wind.
In short, there is EVIDENCE of the existance of wind.
Where is the evidence for this sky daddy of yours?
--
~Julie Kale~
Truth leads to misery, and then it sets you free.
q. h.
religions today, have many views that are not from the Bible. Rather
than question religions and their teachings, why not go straight to the
Bible?
masser of reality
favorite dc talk song for that and other reasons!
-- kevin
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
And as we sail along
I never fail to be astounded by
The things we'll do for promises
And a song -- Ronnie James Dio 1987
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Crazy Habib's House O' Links and Dio friends
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Birdland/7597/Habib.html
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Johnson
would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be stomped
out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I know
thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
Jeremy
<ac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7lf2dj$5a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I know this may cause a bit of a stir-up, but here we go...
>
> Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
> proof do you have to support your case?
>
> Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
> makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
> discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
> Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> (with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> science and Atheism)?
>
g&g
q. h. wrote in message <26903-37...@newsd-231.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Glenn R. wrote:
You do realize, don't you that your above statement is self-contradictory,
don't you?
ac...@my-deja.com
right, here's my opinion...
> Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
> proof do you have to support your case?
The Evolution question is central to this argument. My intent was to
see how the Christians who replied to this message could weigh up a
logical and reasoned argument against evolution, instead of what I see
some people saying... "It just *is* the truth because it's what God/the
Bible tells us." That to me is very closed-minded, cheapskate thinking.
Let us work through this the right way, without one side dodging the
argument entirely.
My answer to the question is no. Firstly, evolution is based around
scientific method, and creation has no scientific method whatsoever to
back it up. I don't really want to explain my case AGAIN, so you can
look at messages 40 - 47 (to date) in "The impossibility of atheism"
discussion originally submitted by Josh Marihugh (at
rec.music.christian) to see how I have reasoned this out. Secondly,
Christianity has changed in so many different ways over the past three
hundred years that even God would have had to keep with the change in
times when people worshipped him in a different way. To me, the only
reason Christianity is still working in this world is because the
Christian priests of the post-dark age had to submit to change for fear
of being banished from their townships or losing their jobs. It took
many, many years for Christians to realise that the world is ROUND, not
FLAT. In the same way, it was up until this decade that Christians
realised that rock music was not of the . This makes Christianity
less and less believable.
> Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
> makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
> discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
I should have rephrased the second question: "Do you believe
Christianity is un-scientific?" To this question, I answer no. There
are many Christian Science groups out there equating the science of a
world they believe God created. In fact, many Christians made
discoveries that affect the world we live in today (Charles Darwin,
Galileo, etc.) However, they do not deal with very specific sides of
science such as astronomy, because, apparently, "God created it and
that's all we need to know."
> Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> (with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> science and Atheism)?
I admit, this is a question that is a bit of a curveball, because there
is no real way to tell. Personally, I would think that Christianity
will slowly die out, the way scientific progression is increasing these
days, but it may become stronger in times of hardship, *especially*
later this year and early next year (because of the Y2K bug), when
people will seek answers as to "why this had to happen to me", and
sanction within the church.
There's my beliefs. What's yours?
Dave Bracken
>
>proof do you have to support your case?
>
come to know Christ. Why is Christianity to be believed in? It's not as
simple as saying that if I hold my hand in the air when the wind is blowing,
I know wind is there; Christianity is not limited to physical evidence; it
is a spiritual experience that words cannot express. I have experienced God
in my life in ways that have proven to me personally that He is there, and
that He is with me. If you want proof of God's existence, try sincerely
asking Him to show you. He usually prefers to work with individuals from
what I've seen.
>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
>makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
>discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
>Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
As far as Christianity being un-scientific, I see no reason for Christians
to not be scientific. God gave us brains for a reason: to learn. I
personally like to learn about science. As far as evidence to prove or
disprove Evolution, this debate has been going on for several years. In my
own belief, I support Creation for two reasons:
1) In my heart, I have accepted Jesus; I have also accepted the fact that
God is real. I have also accepted that God is the Creator.
2) I have been taught by a science teacher that you can't get something from
nothing; even if you are willing to accept the Evolution theory, something
had to make the very first creature. What made it? Did it just appear from
out of nowhere? If so, then that contradicts what science has already
proven: that you cannot have nothing create something.
>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
>science and Atheism)?
>
I personally know that Christ is coming; I can feel it. I also am familiar
enough with Revelation to know that today's times are very much
representative of the last days; including the fact that there are false
teachers, many people being misled, and we are moving towards having a new
world order and a cashless society. I have heard from various sources (and
not all Christian, either) that when we move to a cashless society, there
will be a need for definite identification. One of the ideas being tossed
about currently is a surgically implanted computer chip, either in the hand
or the forehead (hey - isn't that similar to the mark of the beast 666?)
I realize that you would prefer to have physical evidence of God's
existance; I'm sorry to let you down, but God doesn't limit Himself to
physical evidence (maybe He's tired of having to prove Himself to people
after 4,000 years or so). As I stated before, if you really want to know,
ask Jesus to come into your life; I'm sure He would do that for you. God
bless you in all you say and do.
>Please submit your answers as soon as you can!
J. Thomas Ford
Georg Heinrich wrote:
>
<snip>
> There is no objective proof. It is only prooved subjectively by personal
> experience.
Why, then, are similar subjective 'proofs' for different belief systems
invalid?
--
"Apparently, the Wiccan Creed is evil because it runs counter to
mainstream Judeo-Christian military beliefs of truly loving your fellow
man by training to drop napalm on him."
JulieKale
>Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all. He
>would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be stomped
>out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I know
>thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
How come ya didn't answer no other questions there, baby?
So when do you think Jesus is coming back?
J. Thomas Ford
Dave Bracken wrote:
>
> ac...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lf2dj$5a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
<snip>
> >Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> >Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
> >makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
> >discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> >Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
> >
> As far as Christianity being un-scientific, I see no reason for Christians
> to not be scientific. God gave us brains for a reason: to learn. I
> personally like to learn about science. As far as evidence to prove or
> disprove Evolution, this debate has been going on for several years. In my
> own belief, I support Creation for two reasons:
>
> 1) In my heart, I have accepted Jesus; I have also accepted the fact that
> God is real. I have also accepted that God is the Creator.
Fine; biological evolutionary theory doesn't disagree.
> 2) I have been taught by a science teacher that you can't get something from
> nothing;
He was about 99% right, which isn't bad until you start talking about
cosmology.
> even if you are willing to accept the Evolution theory, something
> had to make the very first creature. What made it?
Chemical reactions. A good primer on the sunject is:
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/prob.htm
> Did it just appear from out of nowhere?
Well, not exactly. The universe had been around a minimum of eight
billion years at this point.
> If so, then that contradicts what science has already
> proven: that you cannot have nothing create something.
Science, alas, doesn't agree with you. Do a web search on Quantumn
Fluctuations.
> >Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> >(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> >science and Atheism)?
> >
> I personally know that Christ is coming; I can feel it. I also am familiar
> enough with Revelation to know that today's times are very much
> representative of the last days;
Are you familiar with enough history to know that Revelation was written
for the times of St. John the Divine and the beast is the Emperor
Caligula?
> including the fact that there are false
> teachers, many people being misled, and we are moving towards having a new
> world order
This sounds very much like any point in history. Say, the Norman
invasions, the rise of Julius Ceasar, the rise of Democracy, the rise of
Adolph Hitler, the first Chinese emperor, the indutrial age, the age of
automobiles.
> and a cashless society.
Odd- I don't recall Revelations ever mentioning a cashless society.
> I have heard from various sources (and
> not all Christian, either) that when we move to a cashless society, there
> will be a need for definite identification. One of the ideas being tossed
> about currently is a surgically implanted computer chip, either in the hand
> or the forehead (hey - isn't that similar to the mark of the beast 666?)
Not really. The Mark is supposed to be a sign of affiliation with the
anti-Christ; an ID tattoo or chip is just that- proof of your
identification, verification that you control the money, assets, and
licenses that you claim you do. I see little difference from a driver's
license of SS card- or credit or debit card, for that matter.
I'm not thrilled by the amount of ID we need either, but it doesn't lend
much support for Revelations.
> I realize that you would prefer to have physical evidence of God's
> existance; I'm sorry to let you down, but God doesn't limit Himself to
> physical evidence
Then what extraordinary evidence can be offered?
> (maybe He's tired of having to prove Himself to people
> after 4,000 years or so).
I hope not-being tired of helping people is a human failing. That
wouldn't jibe with the vision of an all-powerful, all-loving god.
<snip>
Dave Bracken
Allow me to explain what I meant a little differently: He sent His son to
not only show us of His love, but to die for our sins and leave them behind
in the tomb. Jesus, while on earth, performed a countless number of
miracles, even in front of those who doubted who He was. They still would
not accept Him as their Savior because the physical proof He provided
apparently wasn't enough. They would not accept the fact that He was who He
was.
Something I have learned after many years of answering questions about my
faith is that yes, God is a loving, caring God, but you cannot prove His
love to someone; they have to sincerely want to know of it. People who don't
want to or even care to know of God without lots of physical evidence will
never find Him. Knowing God is not about God proving His existence to you,
but God revealing Himself to you personally. And all you have to do is ask;
not just debating with Christians about the topic, but going directly to the
source: God Himself.
I may not have a lot of worldly knowledge to backup some of my statements,
and I realize that there are those of you out there with scholarly training
in the realm of science. But I know God, and I know His love for me. I also
know that I wouldn't be alive right now to write this if God wasn't real. I
have experienced the power of prayer, I have felt the hand of God, and I
have survived through spiritual warfare. These would not have been possible
had it not been for God in my life, Jesus in my heart, and the Spirit in my
soul. You may doubt my words, laugh at my statements, and criticize my
beliefs, but I know I AM, and I will not be ashamed. I shall speak no more
on this matter, for I have said all I need to say.
J. Thomas Ford wrote in message <377CC9CD...@nowhere.com>...
Josh Guffin
> Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all. He
> would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be stomped
> out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I know
> thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
I guess that he, in his all knowing wisdom didn't 'plan' for the
belief in a flat planet, or for that matter, any other religion that
has gone the way of the dodo.
Cheers
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Josh Guffin guf...@purdue.edu =
= Purdue U. HEP - TASK E expert.cc.purdue.edu/~guffin =
= #include <std/disclaimer> =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Haas
says...
> Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all. He
> would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be stomped
> out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I know
> thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
>
Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask me
he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
why?
D. Haas
Matt
>
> As far as myself personally, I not only believe in Christianity, but have
> come to know Christ.
What , as a christian, do you mean when you say this? I can't imagine
it's anything like the way you might 'know' your brother, or mother, or
friends. You see them every day. You know theyre around. Unless youre
very lucky, you'll never have seen old JC whilst conscious, so what form
does this relationship take?
I doubt very much its on the form of conversations or e-mail. Is it
'just a feeling' for want of a better phrase, or is it something else?
Excuse my use of punctuation. Its a habit ;)
Byebye
Matt
David B. Murray (SG Fan)
rec.music.christian before you send it.
Thank you,
--
David B. Murray (SG Fan) / dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net
http://www.rfci.net/dbmurray
http://www.musicscribe.com
Making hay while the sun shines
Josh Marihugh
> Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask me
> he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
> way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
> being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
> behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
> why?
God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's law)
blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal with
them...
jmarihugh
NP Circle of Dust
Brian Trosko
: God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's law)
: blood sacrifice.
That's circular. All that statement means is that God had to sacrifice
his son because God needed to sacrifice his son. Since God is the one who
makes God's law, if God didn't *want* to sacrifice his son, he could have
just changed the law.
But he didn't. The only conclusion possible is that, for one reason or
another, God sacrificed his son because he wanted to.
Why did God want to sacrifice his son?
: The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
: man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
Why was that? I mean, if someone sins against me, commits a crime against
me, I have the capacity to just forgive them, whether they atone or not.
Nothing has to bleed. Nobody has to die. I, a mere human being, and
forgive someone who sins against me without the necessitation of further
pain and suffering.
Is it your assertion that your almighty *God* can't do the same thing?
Curiouser and curioser.
: God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal with
: them...
Making them be the ones to bear children certainly comes to mind.
Bob
Josh Marihugh wrote in message <7ljc77$cai$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>
>> Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask me
>> he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
>> way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
>> being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
>> behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
>> why?
>
>man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
Would you please indicate the cite for the above statement.
Thank You.
>
Dave Haas
says...
>
> Allow me to explain what I meant a little differently: He sent His son to
> not only show us of His love, but to die for our sins and leave them behind
> in the tomb. Jesus, while on earth, performed a countless number of
> miracles, even in front of those who doubted who He was. They still would
> not accept Him as their Savior because the physical proof He provided
> apparently wasn't enough. They would not accept the fact that He was who He
> was.
This doesn't make sense. In those days people should have been MORE
gullible than today. Magic should have wowed them. Something is wrong
here. Maybe things didn't happen as they were reported 2000 years ago.
Maybe somebody tampered with the "word".
> Something I have learned after many years of answering questions about my
> faith is that yes, God is a loving, caring God, but you cannot prove His
> love to someone; they have to sincerely want to know of it. People who don't
> want to or even care to know of God without lots of physical evidence will
> never find Him. Knowing God is not about God proving His existence to you,
> but God revealing Himself to you personally. And all you have to do is ask;
You are in effect saying that God is in your brain. That is where belief
is and faith without evidence. There is, therefore, no reason for you to
be here because you believe. There is no way you will NOT believe. So
what do you have to gain by being here?
> not just debating with Christians about the topic, but going directly to the
> source: God Himself.
> I may not have a lot of worldly knowledge
Knowledge is all there is. The knowledge is either backed up by
objective evidence or it isn't. People will not take you seriously if
you can't "back up" objectively your premises.
>to backup some of my statements,
> and I realize that there are those of you out there with scholarly training
> in the realm of science. But I know God, and I know His love for me. I also
> know that I wouldn't be alive right now to write this if God wasn't real. I
> have experienced the power of prayer, I have felt the hand of God, and I
> have survived through spiritual warfare. These would not have been possible
> had it not been for God in my life, Jesus in my heart, and the Spirit in my
> soul. You may doubt my words, laugh at my statements, and criticize my
> beliefs, but I know I AM, and I will not be ashamed. I shall speak no more
> on this matter, for I have said all I need to say.
Why?
D. Haas
q. h.
J. Thomas Ford
Dave Bracken wrote:
>
> Allow me to explain what I meant a little differently: He sent His son to
> not only show us of His love, but to die for our sins and leave them behind
> in the tomb. Jesus, while on earth, performed a countless number of
> miracles, even in front of those who doubted who He was. They still would
> not accept Him as their Savior because the physical proof He provided
> apparently wasn't enough. They would not accept the fact that He was who He
> was.
I can think of several messiahs, god, avatars or the like that this
claim can be made for. To date, the evidence behind them all is equal,
that is, heresay.
> Something I have learned after many years of answering questions about my
> faith is that yes, God is a loving, caring God, but you cannot prove His
> love to someone; they have to sincerely want to know of it. People who don't
> want to or even care to know of God without lots of physical evidence will
> never find Him.
I'm afraid that doesn't speak well of such an all-powerful creator
diety. Sie is allegedly creator of humans, sie should know that rather a
lot will need some sort of objective evidence. Not providing a way for
such types to be privy to this god's existence means either that the
diety doesn't want anyone to know or sie is playing games with humanity-
not a sign of an all-loving god.
> Knowing God is not about God proving His existence to you,
> but God revealing Himself to you personally.
That would work, as well- but since that apparently doesn't happen with
everyone, some are asking for objective evidence.
> And all you have to do is ask;
> not just debating with Christians about the topic, but going directly to the
> source: God Himself.
Got an address?
> I may not have a lot of worldly knowledge to backup some of my statements,
> and I realize that there are those of you out there with scholarly training
> in the realm of science.
Unneccesary unless you are trying to promote the idea that Genesis must
be read literally and therefore you must contradict what mainstream
science has found. Evolution is amoral or athiestic in exactly the same
sense that gravity is.
Rather a lot of scientists are Christians or theists of some sort.
> But I know God, and I know His love for me. I also
> know that I wouldn't be alive right now to write this if God wasn't real. I
> have experienced the power of prayer, I have felt the hand of God, and I
> have survived through spiritual warfare. These would not have been possible
> had it not been for God in my life, Jesus in my heart, and the Spirit in my
> soul.
I'm glad that your spiritual path has done so much for you. Consider
this, however: I can say much the same thing, but if you asked for a
name of the beneficiary diety, I might say "Brighid."
> You may doubt my words,
I don't doubt your sincerity.
> laugh at my statements,
I have not.
> and criticize my beliefs,
"Challenging" is not the same as "criticizing." This is public
discourse, after all.
> but I know I AM, and I will not be ashamed.
No need to be. OTOH, there is no need to invent persecution, either.
> I shall speak no more
> on this matter, for I have said all I need to say.
<shrug> Your perogative.
> J. Thomas Ford wrote in message <377CC9CD...@nowhere.com>...
> >I hope not-being tired of helping people is a human failing. That
> >wouldn't jibe with the vision of an all-powerful, all-loving god.
> >
> ><snip>
BTW- don't mistake my sig line for a blanket criticism of Christianity.
It isn't. It's a quote from an editorial taking Bob Barr to task on his
mean-spirited actions and utterly foolish public statements.
JulieKale
>blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
>man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
Why does god require all this bloodshed?
>God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal with
>them...
Yes he does. It it shameful for a woman to speak in chuch. Don't you read
the thing?
g&g
>> he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
>> way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
>> being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
>> behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
>> why?
>
>blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
>man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
Then why is there still sin? God's sacrifice wasn't too effective, if you
ask me. Why do christians run around saying we non-believers are sinners
when, by your own words Jesus' sacrifice supposedly atoned "once and for all
for man's sin"? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your god who is
omnipotent and omniscient failed miserably to come up with a process that
makes sense and is efficacious.
Robert E. Charles
> I know this may cause a bit of a stir-up, but here we go...
>
> Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
> proof do you have to support your case?
no. the only proof i need is that it is not proven scientifically. get
it? skepticism requires discarding theories that cannot be tested or
cannot be proven. although there is evidence on both sides, there is no
compelling evidence for the existance of god. that requires you to find
another theory.
> Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
> makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
> discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
it is unscientific.
first off, it uses the argument form authority. god said it, i believe it
and all that. science makes you prove your point, regardless of what your
title is. this is the main reason i see religion and science as mutually
exclusive. one cannot be used in place of the other. they seem to have a
problem with observational selection as well.
second, as far as creationism, there is no evidence to support the short
life of the universe that they claim. that alone is enough to discount
their "theory".
> Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> (with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> science and Atheism)?
since i don't believe in god, or his son, i have a hard time worring about
the "second coming". i don't think it will die out anytime soon, and i
also don't think it will die out peacefully.
Robert Charles
alt.atheism#444
"Not a prisoner,
I'm a free man,
And my blood is my own now.
Don't care where the past was,
I know where I'm going."
Iron Maiden (The Prisoner)
Jason Steiner
> Josh Marihugh wrote in message <7ljc77$cai$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
> >
> > God's law) blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone
> > once and for all for man's sin was the blood of a sinless
> > man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
>
> Glenn R. wrote:
> Then why is there still sin? God's sacrifice wasn't too effective,
> if you ask me. Why do christians run around saying we non-
> believers are sinners when, by your own words Jesus' sacrifice
> supposedly atoned "once and for all for man's sin"? It makes
> absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your god who is omnipotent and
> omniscient failed miserably to come up with a process that makes
> sense and is efficacious.
"You see, the religious--most of them--really think this planet
is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some
god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with
tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to
mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say
and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about
enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well
enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If
God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her
obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't
made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would have listened to him
more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start
the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way
he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No,
there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a
sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at
execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition."
- Carl Sagan, Contact
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.
Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."
- Robert A. Heinlein
"That which is happy and imperishable, neither has trouble
itself, nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it
is not subject to feelings of either anger or indebtedness; for
these feelings only exist in what is weak."
- Epicurus, Principal Doctrine I.
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and
drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns."
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf
==== ja...@gaydeceiver.com =================== http://www.gaydeceiver.com/ ====
NANCY A LARSEN
.Glenn R: I found your questions very thought provoking (as opposed to just
provoking :).
I too think that God is a "fixer", but not a fixer of his own goofs, a fixer
of ours. God lets us do whatever we want, and I mean whatever. That's why
he didn't "make" Lot's wife obedient. I'm glad he doesn't make us do
anything. But he does "butt in" because he's concerned about things, and
willing to help us clean up the mess we've made.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
news:7lkktd$fhl$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
NANCY A LARSEN
don't know what Dave Bracken meant when he said he has come to know Christ.
But for me, i'd answer
I know Christ in the same way that you know you're hungry. Baby's know
they're hungry even though they don't know they have a stomach. Even though
they don't know why food will satisfy their hunger or how it does so.
You might say that you know there isn't a God in the same way you would know
that you're hungry. But actually what happens is when you do know Christ,
your "knowing" is much stronger than the "knowing" that you had before that
there is no God. I'm not good with words when I'm this tired, or I would be
able to explain better what I mean. A secondary cause of my knowing Christ
is that I've seen miracles that came in response to calling on the name of
Christ. If you haven't seen a miracle yet, I know you will soon because
miracles are very common.
Matt <mat...@notgoats.co.uk> wrote in message
news:377D23A4...@notgoats.co.uk...
The sPaMInAtoR
Dave Stone wrote:
> > Christianity will prevail.
>
> But to what end? Old Joe Satanist round the corner believes that if
> someone hits him in the face, he should strike back with the same
> force... that's his right, his opinion, for he is free. Would this right
> be taken from him in an ultimate Christian world?
>
> Furthermore, free will includes that we may choose to do evil, or wrong,
> but would this freedom be included in the new Christian world? I mean,
> you might say that all the temptation would be removed but then a
> massive amount of the world would have to removed. The nature of earth
> itself leads to temptation - the physical pleasures of living in a
> physical body are strong.
>
> Or would they be removed too?
>
> And if so, is this paradise? Because it sounds to me like a return to
> the same simpleness of Adam and Eve. This may sound good to you, but
> there are some who live for the pursuit of new wisdom, and that joy of
> saying "I just learned something new!" I would not like to give this up.
>
> Christians speak of God's coming paradise, but to both evil *and* good
> men, this paradise would seem little removed from hell. Put simply, you
> cannot please everybody. If there was one thing that would please
> everybody, it would be because all of those people were so similar to
> one another, in which case there would be no fun. Life would be a
> program - a purposeless continuation of mundanity.
>
> Or do I have it wrong? Please describe for me the paradise your faith
> envisions, and what it might mean for me?
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Dave Stone.
Joe Satanist would be saved and no longer have the evil desire to punch
someones lights out :)
samp(nospam)@wantree.com.au
JulieKale
<7ll1q3$23b8$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>I know Christ in the same way that you know you're hungry. Baby's know
>they're hungry even though they don't know they have a stomach. Even though
>they don't know why food will satisfy their hunger or how it does so.
You have some physical indicator that let's you know there's a god?
Cause...that's how you know you're hungry...believe it or not. <g>
>You might say that you know there isn't a God in the same way you would
know
>that you're hungry. But actually what happens is when you do know Christ,
>your "knowing" is much stronger than the "knowing" that you had before that
>there is no God. I'm not good with words when I'm this tired, or I would
be
>able to explain better what I mean. A secondary cause of my knowing Christ
>is that I've seen miracles that came in response to calling on the name of
>Christ. If you haven't seen a miracle yet, I know you will soon because
>miracles are very common.
I have seen such miracles. They happen in any and ALL religions. All of the
proponents of each religions use those 'miracles' to prove their version of
god. It's called brain power, love. That's all it's called.
Rev Chuck
used to. Come back to the tent, we'll give you some B12 and a whole
lot of Thorazine. Do you have the phone number of a friend who can
pick you up?
Angel wrote:
>
> New Jerusalem WILL come down from the sky...AFTER the earth is purged of
> ALL evil by fire. AFTER the resurrection and 7 year wedding feast, AFTER
> Armageddon, AFTER the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, AFTER the binding
> up of Satan and his angels in the bottomless pit (during the 1000 years
> reign of Christ), AFTER the release of Satan for a time to make war with God
> and His saints, and AFTER Satan is eternally CRUSHED by Jesus and once and
> for all sent to outer darkness (praise Jesus).
> Yes... New Jerusalem will come down. It is listed in the book of Revelation
> along with some prophecies in Daniel. I would urge you to read both of those
> books to make a good decision instead of assuming what Christian prophetic
> fulfillment takes place.
> In Christ,
> Aaron
>
> BÂnkhão <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote in message
> news:7lms5k$18j$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com..
> > Christianity will die out under pressure from science. That is, once we
> > have figured how to scan our brains, and therefore "ourselves" into
> > imperishable computational hardware.
> >
> > This will give every living person a choice: Take a proven road to
> virtual
> > immortality or take a chance with the promise of Christianity. I say,
> > "virtual" immortality, because we would still have to figure out how to
> > outlive the death of the universe.
> >
> > I have no doubt that traditional Christianity will be thrown on the ash
> heap
> > at this time. Of course there will be some who will twist and
> re-interpret
> > to say that this is the promised Christian heaven after all, since
> everybody
> > will be able to "download" the New Jerusalem and "live" there if they
> wish -
> > and didn't the Bible say that the New Jerusalem would come "down" from the
> > sky?
> >
> > Count on it.
> >
> >
--
Nothing says you're insane like prayer.
Rev Chuck, Alt.Atheism #203, Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
Allison
> proponents of each religions use those 'miracles' to prove their version of
> god. It's called brain power, love. That's all it's called.
And this is why not all people have faith in God. The obvious
is not so obvious to them and they make excuses.
J. Thomas Ford
Allison wrote:
>
> > I have seen such miracles. They happen in any and ALL religions. All of the
> > proponents of each religions use those 'miracles' to prove their version of
> > god. It's called brain power, love. That's all it's called.
>
> And this is why not all people have faith in God.
You seem to be under the assumption that everyone should.
Try, instead, dealing with the case at hand: _why_ everyone should
believe in your god instead of their own
> The obvious
> is not so obvious to them
Perhaps the obvious is not so obvious to you.
> and they make excuses.
...and your excuse for skipping the Solstice celebration is?
> Allison
> http://members.tripod.com/~allisoncm/
BÂnkhão
> Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> (with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
> science and Atheism)?
Christianity will die out under pressure from science. That is, once we
BÂnkhão
NANCY A LARSEN <NANCY...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7ll0ss$5c0g$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> .
> .Glenn R: I found your questions very thought provoking (as opposed to
just
> provoking :).
> I too think that God is a "fixer", but not a fixer of his own goofs, a
fixer
> of ours. God lets us do whatever we want, and I mean whatever. That's
why
> he didn't "make" Lot's wife obedient. I'm glad he doesn't make us do
> anything. But he does "butt in" because he's concerned about things, and
> willing to help us clean up the mess we've made.
And perfectly willing to murder you if you do something that offends his
"sensibilities'.
Such as 42 kids teasing a bald man. This offended your "Loving" god, so he
sent two she-bears to kill the kids.
Such as the poor guy who reached up to support the Ark of the Covenent when
it was tipping over. This offended your "Loving" god, so he murdered the
man.
Need I go on? I could, you know.
Angel
ALL evil by fire. AFTER the resurrection and 7 year wedding feast, AFTER
Armageddon, AFTER the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, AFTER the binding
up of Satan and his angels in the bottomless pit (during the 1000 years
reign of Christ), AFTER the release of Satan for a time to make war with God
and His saints, and AFTER Satan is eternally CRUSHED by Jesus and once and
for all sent to outer darkness (praise Jesus).
Yes... New Jerusalem will come down. It is listed in the book of Revelation
along with some prophecies in Daniel. I would urge you to read both of those
books to make a good decision instead of assuming what Christian prophetic
fulfillment takes place.
In Christ,
Aaron
BÂnkhão <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote in message
news:7lms5k$18j$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com...
JulieKale
>New Jerusalem WILL come down from the sky...AFTER the earth is purged of
>ALL evil by fire. AFTER the resurrection and 7 year wedding feast, AFTER
>Armageddon, AFTER the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, AFTER the binding
>up of Satan and his angels in the bottomless pit (during the 1000 years
>reign of Christ), AFTER the release of Satan for a time to make war with
God
>and His saints, and AFTER Satan is eternally CRUSHED by Jesus and once and
>for all sent to outer darkness (praise Jesus).
>Yes... New Jerusalem will come down. It is listed in the book of Revelation
>along with some prophecies in Daniel. I would urge you to read both of
those
>books to make a good decision instead of assuming what Christian prophetic
>fulfillment takes place.
Yeah. If you say so.
Say, how do you know all this? Did 'god' tell you? Or did you just read it
in that little man made book called the buybull?
TopDown
with this type of stuff. How do I know God exists? How could God let bad
things happen? Is there really a heaven? I recommend it to anyone asking
these questions, or to Bible study leaders dealing with a lot of seekers.
--
Doug
Remove spamblock- from address to reply via email.
ac...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lf2dj$5a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I know this may cause a bit of a stir-up, but here we go...
>
>Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
>proof do you have to support your case?
>
>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
>makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
>discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
>Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
>science and Atheism)?
>
>Please submit your answers as soon as you can!
>In truth and freedom,
>Acey.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Johnson
look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't know
when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
Jeremy
JulieKale <jk...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3p3f3.10428$1K2....@news2.mia...
> Johnson <@alltel.net> wrote in message <7lg8fn$k6j$1...@news1.alltel.net>...
> >Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all. He
> >would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be stomped
> >out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I know
> >thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
>
> How come ya didn't answer no other questions there, baby?
> So when do you think Jesus is coming back?
Johnson
discriminate women"??? Please explain
Jeremy
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11e6ed172...@news.campuscwix.net...
> In article <7lg8fn$k6j$1...@news1.alltel.net>, "Johnson" <@alltel.net>
> says...
> > Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all. He
> > would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be
stomped
> > out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I
know
> > thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
> >
>
> Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask me
> he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
> way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
> being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
> behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
> why?
>
> D. Haas
Rev Chuck
>
> Johnson <@alltel.net> wrote in message <7lp746$nd2$1...@news1.alltel.net>...
> >I didn't answer any others, because I'm young, and don't have the time to
> >look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't know
> >when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
>
>
> And yet, how do you KNOW Jesus will be coming back?
>
> --
> ~Julie Kale~
> Truth leads to misery, and then it sets you free.
Jesus already returned. I have it on excellent authority from another
excellent newsgroup that his second coming was a mere 24 hours after
the crucifiction, as a pile of dogshit under the sole of a Roman
centurian's sandal.
Dave Haas
says...
> I'm sorry, I wasn't planning on replying to this message, but "put down and
> discriminate women"??? Please explain
Genesis:
2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels
Exodus:
20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
Leviticus:
12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged
Numbers:
1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty
Deuteronomy:
21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off
D. Haas
JulieKale
Robert E. Charles
> Matt: I totally love this question. This is the most awesome question. I
> don't know what Dave Bracken meant when he said he has come to know Christ.
> But for me, i'd answer
>
> I know Christ in the same way that you know you're hungry. Baby's know
> they're hungry even though they don't know they have a stomach. Even though
> they don't know why food will satisfy their hunger or how it does so.
actually, a baby does not know it is hungry. it experiences a set of sensations
that trigger a response (crying, usually) which has been pre-wired into the
brain. it is not until we reach sentience that we realize that a particular set
of sensations indicate hunger. the child reacts without knowing it is hungry,
or has wet itself, or is too hot. as they get older, parents can pick up on
which cries mean what... but not at first. as the parent picks up on these,
they are seeing the child's brain wire itself. as an adult, the sensations of
hunger will always trigger the same reaction in the brain (and, in fact, it is
possible to fool your brain into thinking you are hungry when you are not --
even after one of my families get-togethers, where i always eat myself silly, i
can do this. no matter how hungry i am, stick a piece of mom's apple pie
infront of me, and i'll find room).
what your claiming here is that you know christ because you have some "void",
"desire", or any of a host of other names given to it. however, if i have a
sense of a void in my life, that does not require that i fill it with god... i
could fill it with chocolate. the fact that you have a sense of something
"larger" than yourself does not constitute evidence for the existance of this
"larger" thing.
> You might say that you know there isn't a God in the same way you would know
> that you're hungry. But actually what happens is when you do know Christ,
> your "knowing" is much stronger than the "knowing" that you had before that
> there is no God. I'm not good with words when I'm this tired, or I would be
> able to explain better what I mean. A secondary cause of my knowing Christ
> is that I've seen miracles that came in response to calling on the name of
> Christ. If you haven't seen a miracle yet, I know you will soon because
> miracles are very common.
"knowing is much stronger"???? you mean you believe stronger. again, however,
no matter how much i believe the earth is flat, that does not make it so. your
belief in god does not make him exist. believe does not itself constitute
evidence. this is the difference between blind faith and a more rational
faith. blind faith requires suspension of rational analysis, whereas the
beliefs that i have are based on the evidence... i don't allow myself to
develop a belief until i have studies the evidence as objectively as i am
capable of.
as for miracles, the catholic church has labeled many events as "miracles", but
i have not seen one proven under a better standard of evidence (like, say,
science?).
Robert E. Charles
> > I have seen such miracles. They happen in any and ALL religions. All of the
> > proponents of each religions use those 'miracles' to prove their version of
> > god. It's called brain power, love. That's all it's called.
>
> And this is why not all people have faith in God. The obvious
> is not so obvious to them and they make excuses.
excuses? hardly. faith in god would have to be caused in me, i don't develop
beliefs in something because everybody else does, or because it is supposed to
make me feel all happy and the like.
but, however, you make a good point. what is obvious? funny thing i've noticed
about science is the fact that things are quite counter-intuitive. what may be
obvious turns out to be wrong. a quick survey of quantum-mechanics is a good
example of this.
Rev Chuck
unqualified truth, if it's not going to die out, why do you push
it on everyone else? Why do you push school prayer? Why do you
wish to control what I read? Why do you want women to have no
freedom over their own bodies?
Angel wrote:
>
> Question:
> If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why do
> you spend so much of your time trying to discount it? It seems to me that
> something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under the
> pressure of scrutiny. Christianity gets a lot of scrutiny but for some
> reason has not died out. Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
> trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your heart
> and is trying to draw you near to Him. Do not continue to harden your heart.
> Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot die
> out.
> In Jesus name,
> Aaron
Rev Chuck
>
> MVCS <n.o.s.p....@idt.net> wrote:
> > "BÂnkhão" <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote:
> > > .... That is, once we have figured how to scan our brains, and
> > > therefore "ourselves" into imperishable computational hardware.
> >
> > From the field of neurophysiology, artificial intelligence, and
> > computer science (pragmatic engineering thereof).... it can't happen
> > here in the sense that you want.... but it has already happened
> > here: it's called the human brain. You will never be able to
> > engineer a 3D cube of solid state hardware capable of hosting the
> > exact duplication of a human brain. If you could get close, it
> > would be a "snap-shot" of the physiological "house" for the mind
> > that lived in it at the time that the snap-shot was taken. No
> > ability to change, alter, or learn anything new.
>
> Um... why? Nobody said that the computational hardware had to lack the
> abilility to change.
>
> jason
The next generation microprocessor will be designed with this generation's
microprocessor. Self-modification is by no means a novel approach. LISP
is the classic AI language because programs and data are stored as the
same data type, lists. If a LISP program can modify data, it can modify
itself. This is called learning.
>
> --
> "a general theme of anarchy, rebellion, and autonomy"
> ==== ja...@gaydeceiver.com =================== http://www.gaydeceiver.com/ ====
--
MVCS
>... Is Christianity to be believed in?
Yup.
> Why/why not?
Because God meant it that way.
> What proof do you have to support your case?
He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to
the Father except through me.", "and whoever does not take up the
cross and follow me is not worthy of me", "For God so loved the world
that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may
not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son
into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might
be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but
those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not
believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment,
that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness
rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil
hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may
not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so
that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."
Additionally, I am drawn and urged by God's Spirit to follow Him. If
it were not important, He would not be so interested in this type of
activity. If it were not for His urging, I would be dead now.
>
>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>Atheist community. Is this true?
No.
> Why/why not?
"Science" is a method; a way of organizing data and testing
organizations and interpretations of information and data so as to
preclude bias, subjectivity, opinion, emotion, lack of attention to
detail, incomplete knowledge or understanding, etc. Certain parts of
the Christian experience are indeed repeatable in a scientific manner.
E.g., tithing.... the one and only area of spirituality where God will
allow Himself to be "tested". The results of many, many scientific
experinments are recorded as a matter of history in the Exodus. As He
said, [paraphrasing] "These things happened to them when they tried
and tested me in the wilderness and saw my acts so that you would not
have any question in you life now that it is not a good thing to
harden you heart against the Word of God when it comes to you." Every
time a person hardens their heart against the word of God, there is an
objective, observable, external, identifiable, and predictable
manifestation of external, measureable behaviors and actions and
expressions which eminate from that person. In the scientific method,
ones opinion of the data is irrelevant... whether one "likes" or
"dislikes" the data is irrelevant. That the data exists is what is
important to the experiment. Hardening ones heart produces undeniable
and unmistakable internal and external consequences, whether one likes
the fact that the consequences are produced or not. It may be
politically incorrect to expose the observables, but if they did not
exist then there would not be an argument, eh? The fact that there IS
an argument proves that there is something to argue ABOUT. This is
data. Verbal expressions heared or read by others than the originator
serve as objective evidence of an external, objective reality. The
repetitious manner in which history repeats itself in people and
cultures regarding their acceptance and rejection of God's Spirit is
an objective fact that is undeniable (as an example). There are other
examples of the scientific nature of many processes and realities
which are expressed by and through Christianity.
> If this is true, what
>makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
>discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
>Christian belief,
See the above.
> and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
Unanswerable question due to its false premise.
>
>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
It already has, does, and is.
>(with the second coming of Jesus)
Yup, that, too, in God's good time.
> or die out (under pressure from science and Atheism)?
"Science" is not anathema to Christiantiy. Neither is knowledge,
technology, understanding, or wisdom. Atheism has no chance. Only a
fool believes that there is NO God, god, gods, G-D, or whatever. And
fools always run into a ditch somewhere and end their "importance" as
a natural consequence of the very seeds of destruction which are sown
within.
MVCS
>.... That is, once we
>have figured how to scan our brains, and therefore "ourselves" into
>imperishable computational hardware. ......
From the field of neurophysiology, artificial intelligence, and
computer science (pragmatic engineering thereof).... it can't happen
here in the sense that you want.... but it has already happened here:
it's called the human brain. You will never be able to engineer a 3D
cube of solid state hardware capable of hosting the exact duplication
of a human brain. If you could get close, it would be a "snap-shot" of
the physiological "house" for the mind that lived in it at the time
that the snap-shot was taken. No ability to change, alter, or learn
anything new. A rather static, uninteresting existence doomed to
repeat the same thought and feeling and perception ad infinitum ad
nauseum. Trapped in a flawed and limited hardware structure without
the ability to grow and learn and change. Unable to even detect that
there was a design limitation. Sort of a fools paradise of ignorant
bliss.
Hardly an apt and fertile ground from whence to spring the seeds of
destruction of creative, enlightened, spiritual experience, eh?
Jason Steiner
> "BÂnkhão" <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote:
> > .... That is, once we have figured how to scan our brains, and
> > therefore "ourselves" into imperishable computational hardware.
> > ......
>
> From the field of neurophysiology, artificial intelligence, and
> computer science (pragmatic engineering thereof).... it can't happen
> here in the sense that you want.... but it has already happened
> here: it's called the human brain. You will never be able to
> engineer a 3D cube of solid state hardware capable of hosting the
> exact duplication of a human brain. If you could get close, it
> would be a "snap-shot" of the physiological "house" for the mind
> that lived in it at the time that the snap-shot was taken. No
> ability to change, alter, or learn anything new.
Um... why? Nobody said that the computational hardware had to lack the
abilility to change.
jason
--
Angel
If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why do
you spend so much of your time trying to discount it? It seems to me that
something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under the
pressure of scrutiny. Christianity gets a lot of scrutiny but for some
reason has not died out. Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your heart
and is trying to draw you near to Him. Do not continue to harden your heart.
Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot die
out.
In Jesus name,
Aaron
> Jesus already returned. I have it on excellent authority from another
> excellent newsgroup that his second coming was a mere 24 hours after
> the crucifiction, as a pile of dogshit under the sole of a Roman
> centurian's sandal.
>
JulieKale
>Question:
>If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why do
>you spend so much of your time trying to discount it?
I have to deal with christians everyday who seem to be under the impression
that my lil savage self needs saving. These debates keep my mind fresh on
the issue.
>It seems to me that
>something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under the
>pressure of scrutiny. Christianity gets a lot of scrutiny but for some
>reason has not died out.
Niether has Judism, Budhism, the religion of Wicca, Astrology, Tarot
Reading....I could go on and on.
>Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
>trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your heart
>and is trying to draw you near to Him.
No, you christians just won't leave me alone.
>Do not continue to harden your heart.
>Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot die
>out.
>In Jesus name,
I think it will. One day you christians will take the blinders off and see
how dehumanizing your religion is. And you will let it go. You personally
might not...but it will happen sooner or later.
JulieKale
>ac...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>... Is Christianity to be believed in?
>
>Yup.
>
>> Why/why not?
>
>Because God meant it that way.
In other words, "yes, because god said so."
>> What proof do you have to support your case?
<snip bible verses>
>
>Additionally, I am drawn and urged by God's Spirit to follow Him. If
>it were not important, He would not be so interested in this type of
>activity. If it were not for His urging, I would be dead now.
So your faith is based mostly on experience? What about those whose
experiences lead them to different faiths? Are their positions any less
valid than yours?
>>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>>Atheist community. Is this true?
>
>No.
The religion itself is based on subjective feelings. Faith. There is nothing
verifiable about christianity. If there was, faith would not be required.
Thus, there is nothing scientific about it either.
I am going to disagree. All of these examples and more can be used to prove
the validity of any religion.
>>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>
>It already has, does, and is.
>
>>(with the second coming of Jesus)
>
>Yup, that, too, in God's good time.
That's a belief.
>> or die out (under pressure from science and Atheism)?
>
>"Science" is not anathema to Christiantiy. Neither is knowledge,
>technology, understanding, or wisdom.
This is quite true. Science is a method, not a religion.
>Atheism has no chance. Only a
>fool believes that there is NO God, god, gods, G-D, or whatever. And
>fools always run into a ditch somewhere and end their "importance" as
>a natural consequence of the very seeds of destruction which are sown
>within.
Why do you call people fools because they do not believe in a god? Your last
statement implies that atheists ar bad people who get what they deserve, due
to their bad natures.
Josh Marihugh
last
> statement implies that atheists ar bad people who get what they deserve,
due
> to their bad natures.
Atheists aren't necessarily bad people...from his posts, Jason Steiner
doesn't appear to be a bad person.
People believe what they believe, regardless of what others think of them. I
discovered recently that I have no peers theologically. I enjoy Christian
rock and alternate translations of the Bible, so I don't fit in with Bible
Believers, the Beardsleys, Dial-the-Truth, and their ilk; and I agree with
Rick Joyner, Charles Finney, and the Brownsville Revival crowd, so I don't
fit in with those who attack these ministries.
However, I remain convinced I am right. I fail to see evidence to the
contrary.
> --
> ~Julie Kale~
> Truth leads to misery, and then it sets you free.
Josh Marihugh
"and you will know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."
jmarihugh
NP Mortsl "Wake"
Josh Marihugh
> Why do you still follow him?
Tell me where He set a time limit on His return.
jmarihugh
NP Mortal "Wake"
Robert E. Charles
> Question:
> If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why do
> you spend so much of your time trying to discount it?
because you fundies keep posting to atheist newsgroups, because you keep trying
to userp the rights of non-christians (school prayer, prayer amendments, and any
other legal hammer you can use to stamp out everyone else), and because you keep
pounding on the front door offering to tell me about your cult which i already
know about.
> It seems to me that
> something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under the
> pressure of scrutiny.
nonsense. humans knew the earth was round centuries before the rise of
christianity. it took a long time to change that myth. most Americans believe
that Washington actually did chop down a cherry tree, that the founding fathers
were devoutly christian and followed the teachings of the christian churches,
and a host of other myths about our actual history. things that are not true
stay around a long time.
> Christianity gets a lot of scrutiny but for some
> reason has not died out.
it gets scrutiny from lots of people, but not the ones who follow it. just how
many of its followers really check into their beliefs?
> Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
> trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your heart
> and is trying to draw you near to Him.
sure it does. being struck by lightening would convince you that god was
punishing me. so what? you will interpret all events as evidence for your
silly religion, regardless of any rational objection. you just want to believe,
so you believe. the evidence does not matter.
> Do not continue to harden your heart.
i had a low-fat salad for lunch. does that count?
> Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot die
> out.
ok christian. lets see if you can understand something. you want me to answer
your god's call. i don't believe in god. so, how can i answer the call of
something i don't believe exists?
Robert E. Charles
> The next generation microprocessor will be designed with this generation's
> microprocessor. Self-modification is by no means a novel approach. LISP
> is the classic AI language because programs and data are stored as the
> same data type, lists. If a LISP program can modify data, it can modify
> itself. This is called learning.
this is a good point. there has been the argument that AI could not duplicate the
brain with electronic hardware, but that is not the whole story. computers based on
electricity (electronics that we have today) may have a theoretical limit to how
small they can get, but there are ample examples out there of hardware learning.
neural net systems do exist and are somewhat practical. maybe an "electronic brain"
would be larger than a human brain, but that is not relevent. the question is
whether we can engineer a learning piece of equipment, and we have.
Robert E. Charles
> There is an excellent Bible study series called "Tough Questions" that deals
> with this type of stuff. How do I know God exists? How could God let bad
> things happen? Is there really a heaven? I recommend it to anyone asking
> these questions, or to Bible study leaders dealing with a lot of seekers.
i've seen this. argument from design, pascal's wager, belief before reason,
ad-hoc proctor hoc, yadda yadda yadda. all the usual simpleton arguments and
logical fallicies.
Robert E. Charles
> ac...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >... Is Christianity to be believed in?
>
> Yup.
>
> > Why/why not?
>
> Because God meant it that way.
silly argument. you'd have to prove the existance of god before you can
prove that god wanted anything.
> > What proof do you have to support your case?
>
> He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to
> the Father except through me.", "and whoever does not take up the
> cross and follow me is not worthy of me", "For God so loved the world
> that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may
> not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son
> into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might
> be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but
> those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not
> believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment,
> that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness
> rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil
> hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may
> not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so
> that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."
this is good. so, if one cannot prove the validity of the claim that god
exists, can you tell me how one is to believe that the bible is true? the
bible could say god sneezed and the earth was created. that would be just
as believable as what the bible does say.
> Additionally, I am drawn and urged by God's Spirit to follow Him. If
> it were not important, He would not be so interested in this type of
> activity. If it were not for His urging, I would be dead now.
your being drawn to him is not evidence. you cannot show that god is
drawing you. goes back to the point above, that you have to prove god
exists before you can claim it is doing anthing to anyone. that you
"believe" god is calling you is not evidence, as belief, in and of itself,
does not constitute evidence.
> >
> >Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
> >Atheist community. Is this true?
>
> No.
wrong.
> > Why/why not?
>
> "Science" is a method; a way of organizing data and testing
> organizations and interpretations of information and data so as to
> preclude bias, subjectivity, opinion, emotion, lack of attention to
> detail, incomplete knowledge or understanding, etc. Certain parts of
> the Christian experience are indeed repeatable in a scientific manner.
> E.g., tithing.... the one and only area of spirituality where God will
> allow Himself to be "tested". The results of many, many scientific
> experinments are recorded as a matter of history in the Exodus. As He
> said, [paraphrasing] "These things happened to them when they tried
> and tested me in the wilderness and saw my acts so that you would not
> have any question in you life now that it is not a good thing to
> harden you heart against the Word of God when it comes to you."
this is what you call a scientific test????? who observed this? can you
validate the observers claims? can this experiment be repeated? if this
is science, it is being done by 5 year olds.
> Every
> time a person hardens their heart against the word of God, there is an
> objective, observable, external, identifiable, and predictable
> manifestation of external, measureable behaviors and actions and
> expressions which eminate from that person.
this is funny. what, exactly, did you say here, anyway? are you saying
that they, what, go out and rape and kill???? hey, you religious people
can do that too.
> In the scientific method,
> ones opinion of the data is irrelevant... whether one "likes" or
> "dislikes" the data is irrelevant.
very good. now you understand why religion and science are mutually
exclusive. in religion, everything depends on the interpretation of the
"data".
> That the data exists is what is
> important to the experiment.
this only allows it to be done... but this is not the only important
thing. the data must be collected in a method that insures its integrity.
> Hardening ones heart produces undeniable
> and unmistakable internal and external consequences, whether one likes
> the fact that the consequences are produced or not. It may be
> politically incorrect to expose the observables, but if they did not
> exist then there would not be an argument, eh?
you keep referencing these consequences, but you don't list what they
are. please list them, then prove why each one indicates what you think
it means.
> The fact that there IS
> an argument proves that there is something to argue ABOUT. This is
> data.
hahahahahaha... this is good. that means that santa is really out there,
the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, the boogy man...
> Verbal expressions heared or read by others than the originator
> serve as objective evidence of an external, objective reality.
????????
> The
> repetitious manner in which history repeats itself in people and
> cultures regarding their acceptance and rejection of God's Spirit is
> an objective fact that is undeniable (as an example).
objective???? do you understand what that term means?
> There are other
> examples of the scientific nature of many processes and realities
> which are expressed by and through Christianity.
there are, at best, many examples of pseudo-science.
> > If this is true, what
> >makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
> >discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
> >Christian belief,
>
> See the above.
>
> > and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
> Unanswerable question due to its false premise.
which is???? evolution can be tested for. had a cold lately? know
anyone who has. talk to someone who got a flu shot this past winter. bet
they need another one next year (and not because its effects ran out...
the virus is constantly mutating.. er, ah, evolving).
> >
> >Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>
> It already has, does, and is.
>
> >(with the second coming of Jesus)
>
> Yup, that, too, in God's good time.
never really read the bible, eh? christ meant that his followers of his
time would live to see the second coming.
> > or die out (under pressure from science and Atheism)?
>
> "Science" is not anathema to Christiantiy. Neither is knowledge,
> technology, understanding, or wisdom.
science and religion are mutually exclusive. religion requires faith...
faith built on subjective interpretations of events and actions. science
is a method that requires objective study... one can not be used in
place of the other. if i divide 3/4 by 5/6 i can do so with either
fractions or decimal numbers and always get the same answer. if i use
religion to study something it is unlikely that i would get the same
answer i would get useing science.
> Atheism has no chance.
it has been around far longer than christianity.
> Only a
> fool believes that there is NO God, god, gods, G-D, or whatever.
yeah, right. there is no evidence for the tooth fairy... am i a fool for
not believing that it exists?
> And
> fools always run into a ditch somewhere and end their "importance" as
> a natural consequence of the very seeds of destruction which are sown
> within.
whatever.
BÂnkhão
Johnson <@alltel.net> wrote in message news:7lp746$nd2$1...@news1.alltel.net...
> I didn't answer any others, because I'm young, and don't have the time to
> look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't know
> when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
He promised he'd come back in the first century. He broke that promise.
Jason Steiner
> Question:
> If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth
> then why do you spend so much of your time trying to discount it?
For that to be true, most people would have to give a fuck about truth
and scrutiny and things like that.
Sadly, that's not true.
Christianity is a mind virus that survives the same way that physical
viruses do. Not by benefitting their hosts, but by taking advantage of
their weaknesses.
jason
NP: Etta James
John Cassidy
Rev Chuck <cdub@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> wrote in message
news:37803AE2.63D2@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com...<7lp746$nd2$1...@news1.alltel.net>...
> > >I didn't answer any others, because I'm young, and don't have the time
to
> > >look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't
know
> > >when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
> >
> >
> > And yet, how do you KNOW Jesus will be coming back?
> >
> > ~Julie Kale~
> > Truth leads to misery, and then it sets you free.
>
> excellent newsgroup that his second coming was a mere 24 hours after
> the crucifiction, as a pile of dogshit under the sole of a Roman
> centurian's sandal.
>
> --
> Nothing says you're insane like prayer.
> Rev Chuck, Alt.Atheism #203, Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
> Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
I'd rather REMOVE _THIS_ from the ng. :)
BÂnkhão
Josh Marihugh <jmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lueu8$li5$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
> > He promised he'd come back in the first century. He broke that promise.
> > Why do you still follow him?
>
"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [Matt. iv, 17.]
"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be
come." [Matt X, 23.]
"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see
the Son of man coming in his kingdom." [Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1.]
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come ... Verily I say unto
you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
[Matt. xxiv, 74-34; Luke xxi, 32.]
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." [Mark i, 15.]
"So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know
that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this
generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." ["Mark xiii,
29-30.]
It seems quite clear to me that these things should have come to pass in the
first century. They didn't, of course, so Christians must mangle and twist
these words to try to make them seem something other than what they clearly
are.
John Cassidy
Robert E. Charles wrote in :
> Angel wrote:
> > Question:
> > If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why
do
> > you spend so much of your time trying to discount it?
>
trying
> to userp the rights of non-christians (school prayer, prayer amendments,
and any
> other legal hammer you can use to stamp out everyone else), and because
you keep
> pounding on the front door offering to tell me about your cult which i
already
> know about.
Over here in alt.music.christian.rock we have a ton of off-post topics. It
was not
typically so. Judging from my experience in other groups, I'd say it was
started by
an atheist "preacher".
I used to be one of those too, so don't tell me that streak doesn't run in
atheists.
I go to a Promise Keepers event and we've got atheist protesters there all
the
time. Who by the way cannot tell me why me practising my religion is
anything
for them to complain about. All they can tell me is that somehow I'm getting
marching orders inside which I am not getting. That is just *their*
pathetic,
uninformed belief.
>
> > It seems to me that
> > something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under
the
> > pressure of scrutiny.
>
> nonsense. humans knew the earth was round centuries before the rise of
> christianity. it took a long time to change that myth. most Americans
believe
> that Washington actually did chop down a cherry tree, that the founding
fathers
> were devoutly christian and followed the teachings of the christian
churches,
> and a host of other myths about our actual history. things that are not
true
> stay around a long time.
Most of the knowledge that the world was round became *obscured* by the
illiterate pragmatic Franks. This was not widely "known". I take it here is
where you sing a paeon to the "Enlightenment" era? Here is where you
fill me with your erudition on the dogma of the accelerated enlightenment?
>
> > Christianity gets a lot of scrutiny but for some
> > reason has not died out.
>
> it gets scrutiny from lots of people, but not the ones who follow it.
just how
> many of its followers really check into their beliefs?
Wrong. C.S. Lewis started looking into it because he saw a number of
men whose intelligence he respected becoming christians.
BTW, I wonder just how much scrutiny YOU'VE put on your own belief
system, pally. I know how much I've put on mine. God couldn't tell me
a thing! Still can't to a large degree. Each point had to be excruciatingly
explained to me.
>
> > Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
> > trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your
heart
> > and is trying to draw you near to Him.
>
> sure it does. being struck by lightening would convince you that god was
> punishing me. so what? you will interpret all events as evidence for
your
> silly religion, regardless of any rational objection. you just want to
believe,
> so you believe. the evidence does not matter.
And you will interpret all events as coincidences, so what?
BTW, my faith is NOT silly. Jesus' golden rule is the sin qua non of
morality.
Expanding one of Confucius' negative principles in a positive, proactive
one.
Jesus, "confession therapy" (my words) predicted the major points of
psychoanalysys. Jesus words on forgiveness is the theme of any real love
relationship that I have ever had.
And I'm interested to hear, what are YOUR rational objections? What have
you deduced from your own empirical experiences. I'm not talking about
books or things that you've heard others account of (the account is
therefore
invested in faith in the authority of that source).
> > Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot
die
> > out.
>
> ok christian. lets see if you can understand something. you want me to
answer
> your god's call. i don't believe in god. so, how can i answer the call
of
> something i don't believe exists?
Well, I don't believe that you really exist. Does that mean that I won't
hear you
when you call? If I don't believe in the gorilla--as the institution of
science did not
near the turn of the century--how do I hear his call?
Your statement makes no sense unless you mean, how can you hear the call
of something that does not exist. Otherwise how is a Christian to "hear the
call"
of the natural evolution of species, which he believes does not exist? How
am
I to "hear the call" of your obviously superior intellect (which I don't
believe
exists :))?
So I understand something: you don't write accurately. :P
You know, if I want to play rrrrreallll dumb, I don't believe rational
thought
exists. How you gonna' convince me that it does? Step right up, you
might be the rare person who can convince me it does.
Rational thought is a notion that your brain gets when it has a connection
between two synapses which are devoid of any outward physical test that
it is rational thought. What is "content"? Does content exist?
Alot of what you said relies on the existence of rational thought. If it
doesn't
exist, what you said makes about as much sense as when I say Jesus
will descend in a hail of fire to judge all nations.
BTW, I post the following article that originates this thread. And one of
your
theses has to fall: It is either 1) a Christian acting skeptical about his
own
religion or 2) an atheist stirring up trouble in a christian ng. (I don't
have to
tell you which one my experience stands behind.)
--
Peace of Christ,
John J. Cassidy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking for Skeptical, Phenomenological,
Existential, Christian Fundamentalists
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts of a 20th-century Christian Philosopher:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/6038
ac...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lf2dj$5a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I know this may cause a bit of a stir-up, but here we go...
>
>Question One: Is Christianity to be believed in? Why/why not? What
>proof do you have to support your case?
>
>Question Two: Christianity is often regarded as un-scientific by the
>Atheist community. Is this true? Why/why not? If this is true, what
>makes Christianity so un-scientific, and what evidence do you have to
>discount Creation? If not, what scientific evidence does support the
>Christian belief, and what evidence do you have to discount Evolution?
>
>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>(with the second coming of Jesus) or die out (under pressure from
>science and Atheism)?
>
>Please submit your answers as soon as you can!
>In truth and freedom,
>Acey.
John Cassidy
BÂnkhão <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote in message
news:7ludss$ogf$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com...news:7lp746$nd2$1...@news1.alltel.net...
> > I didn't answer any others, because I'm young, and don't have the time
to
> > look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't know
> > when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
>
> Why do you still follow him?
Quote where he said that he would be back before 100 AD. And Jesus
also said that He didn't know the time or the place, but only the Father
knew.
So what he was relating to the Apostles were images of the end times. He
knew what they'd be like, he didn't know when it would be.
You're interpreting "this generation" to mean the comtemporary generation.
This is NOT the only interpretation. There are others that match a proximate
meaning of the Greek text. I've researched this one in Greek (briefly)
John Cassidy
> In article <93093610...@news.remarQ.com>, croc...@surfshop.net
> says...
> >
> > [snip] Jesus, while on earth, performed a countless number of
> > miracles, even in front of those who doubted who He was. They still
would
> > not accept Him as their Savior because the physical proof He provided
> > apparently wasn't enough. They would not accept the fact that He was who
He
> > was.
>
> This doesn't make sense. In those days people should have been MORE
> gullible than today.
You no doubt have clinical studies which show that to be true?
> Magic should have wowed them.
And yet, even the "historical" content of the bible argues against you.
>
> Something is wrong
> here. Maybe things didn't happen as they were reported 2000 years ago.
> Maybe somebody tampered with the "word".
Maybe. But HEY! That's not the only maybe in the proposition IS IT?!
Let's try: maybe you're wrong. Besides there are number of anthropologists
who have done studies to show that primitve peoples are not a superstitious
or gullible as modern post-Frazierites make them out to be. See, this is all
part of your doctrine of progressive, accelerated enlightenment.
This truth has *baffled* a number of anthropologists who had been taught
the enlightement doctrine.
> > Something I have learned after many years of answering questions about
my
> > faith is that yes, God is a loving, caring God, but you cannot prove His
> > love to someone; they have to sincerely want to know of it. People who
don't
> > want to or even care to know of God without lots of physical evidence
will
> > never find Him. Knowing God is not about God proving His existence to
you,
> > but God revealing Himself to you personally. And all you have to do is
ask;
>
> You are in effect saying that God is in your brain. That is where belief
> is and faith without evidence. There is, therefore, no reason for you to
> be here because you believe. There is no way you will NOT believe. So
> what do you have to gain by being here?
No he's not. Good job of making hash out of what he does say. No
Bible-believing Christian ever offers the proposition that God exists
soly in their brain. The Ten Commandments weren't in my brain. The
Bible is not "in my brain". Jesus is not "in my brain". Paul's/Isaiah's
concept that God would die to redeem the lost is not "in my brain".
And even if Adam and Eve are figments of the imagination they
are not "in my brain".
He is saying that God communicates to us through His Spirit, which
indwells those who have accepted His Son. This part corresponds
to his brain--but that is YOUR concept.
>
> > I may not have a lot of worldly knowledge
>
> Knowledge is all there is. The knowledge is either backed up by
> objective evidence or it isn't. People will not take you seriously if
> you can't "back up" objectively your premises.
You are blind, my friend.
Among other things here, you sound like a "strong" atheist.
No doubt, when questioned about this you will retreat to a *weak*
atheist position and say "I wasn't doin' nuthin' really, I weren't."
(Strong Atheist=insupportable argument), (Weak Atheist=coopting
Agnostic argument)
Your statement can't hold up to the positive-claimant form of the
weak atheist argument, because it does not permit of a
negative-claimant to be right without objective evidence, that the
"positive-claimant" form suggests does not need to be supplied.
Let me again quote this little gem:
> Knowledge is all there is.
Is that your belief? Apparently, then there must be nothing that we don't
know. :) I'm tired of bringing this up to atheists, but there was
'objective'
proof of phloegesteron and the ether --the things didn't actually exist.
There was no objective proof of gorillas and meteorites--the things
actually did exist. Physicists of this day speak of Superstrings which
have no 'proof' about them.
> >to backup some of my statements,
> > and I realize that there are those of you out there with scholarly
training
> > in the realm of science. But I know God, and I know His love for me. I
also
> > know that I wouldn't be alive right now to write this if God wasn't
real. I
> > have experienced the power of prayer, I have felt the hand of God, and I
> > have survived through spiritual warfare. These would not have been
possible
> > had it not been for God in my life, Jesus in my heart, and the Spirit in
my
> > soul. You may doubt my words, laugh at my statements, and criticize my
> > beliefs, but I know I AM, and I will not be ashamed. I shall speak no
more
> > on this matter, for I have said all I need to say.
>
> Why?
Because there are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamt of in
your philosophy.
>
> D. Haas
John Cassidy
> Genesis:
> 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
Where's the insult. Man is created from dust. At least the thing that a
woman
was created from was refined at the time. Also, a number of Christian women
have found a meaningful symbolism in this. Eve was not created from Adam's
skull, so she is not superior, not from his foot so she is not inferior, but
from
his side, where she belongs.
> 3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
Man cursed to toil to gain food from the earth. So what?
> 19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels
This one is stupid. The Angels (who knew God-I'd say a shade better than
Lot {the _sage_ you are quoting here}) said **"YOU MUST NOT DO THIS EVIL
THING"**. Read what you post about, pal!
And of course the Bible extols the virtue of Lot doesn't it?!?!?!? This is
the
most recurring non-argument I see on this topic -- and the amount of
research that is done into this one really doesn't impress me.
You must have exercised *faith* on quoting that one, guy.
> Exodus:
> 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
That's one way of looking at it. Is that the only way? Are you being
dogmatic here?
I see it as a general prohibition against a covetous heart. Desiring what
you don't
have to the point of depriving others.
> 21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
> 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
> Leviticus:
> 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
> 12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
> 15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
> 19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged
> Numbers:
> 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
> 5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
> 31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty
> Deuteronomy:
> 21:11-14 Rape manual
Wrong verses.
That's only if the only way that a female servant can "please"
her master is by sex. If you want to take that way then fine. Can't
then say that the bible supports this, only that your interpretation
does. Mine doesn't.
> 22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
> 22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
Here again seduced=rape. And I guess that does qualify if you are a
rabid feminist. In the city, the woman had to attempt to cry out, otherwise
it was consentual. The seducer and the seducee were culpable. That's
why the one below qualifies for non-urban adultary. I can only find
conservative preachers who are a dogmatic on their interpretation as
you seem to be.
> 22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
> 24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice versa
> 25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off
>
>
> D. Haas
> > > says...
> > > > Answer to Question #3: Christianity 'Will' prevail. God knows all.
He
> > > > would not have planned something that he knew would eventually be
> > stomped
> > > > out by people who 'think' they know that the truth doesn't exist. (I
> > know
> > > > thats worded kinda weird, sorry)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask
me
> > > he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
> > > way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a
rational
> > > being?
Not in the context you mean it, no.
His "son" was the part of himself that could be tortured and killed. Jesus
said "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." "We are one." This is the
same mistaken notion that I had as a non-believer.
Here is the way I understand redemption: God is all powerful. He could
have had a perfect universe. His sense of perfection had to die. In allowing
us freedom, and letting us mess up the cosmos for a time, he is actually
engaging in what he finds to be the greater perfection: loving that which is
other than Himself. Jesus Christ is the lamb "slain from the foundation of
the world".
> > > Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
> > > behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
> > > why?
> > >
> > > D. Haas
Yeah, right. Paranoid Macho Human males speak of their Lovingkindness
and their gentleness, right? All the evidence does not fit into your tight
little
categories. Better get some lubricant.
This is of course characteristic of a chauvinistic God, right:
Hosea 3: 31The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again,
though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the
LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the
sacred raisin cakes."
That's the He-man role isn't it? Love your adulterous wife?
Bateau
did lubucrate:
>
>> Then why did he have to kill everybody in the great flood? If you ask me
>> he made a BIG mistake. Why was torturing and killing his son the only
>> way he could forgive human sin? This does not seem the act of a rational
>> being? Why does he put down and discriminate against women. His
>> behavior is similar to that of a paranoid macho human male. I wonder
>> why?
>
>God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's law)
>blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
>man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
what makes one blood better than another? "God's law" does, and who do you
think made *God's* law?
--
I am so, Filled with pain ' http://bateau.cjb.net '
A bruised and darkened soul J & ___ R
Spare me from the O `;' `..=& O
Life that's full of misery L : o o ; G
I don't want to live that way L d='`. ^ ,: lbm E
ICQ UIN:11367619 Y HHH `b R
Email:cdc at start.com.au ' http://frv2.cjb.net '
John Cassidy
JulieKale <jk...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
> >>Atheist community. Is this true?
> >
>
> The religion itself is based on subjective feelings. Faith. There is
nothing
> verifiable about christianity. If there was, faith would not be required.
> Thus, there is nothing scientific about it either.
There is nothing 'scientific' about the laws of logic either. Big whoop!
You know in all my reading of the Bible, I would have thought that there
were measurements and repeatable experiments in there somewhere.
:)
[snip]
> >>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
> >
> >It already has, does, and is.
> >
> >>(with the second coming of Jesus)
> >
> >Yup, that, too, in God's good time.
>
> That's a belief.
I'm sure that those words did not startle him.
"What! You mean I've been believing in a belief all this time!?!"
[snip]
> >Atheism has no chance. Only a
> >fool believes that there is NO God, god, gods, G-D, or whatever. And
> >fools always run into a ditch somewhere and end their "importance" as
> >a natural consequence of the very seeds of destruction which are sown
> >within.
>
> Why do you call people fools because they do not believe in a god? Your
last
> statement implies that atheists ar bad people who get what they deserve,
due
> to their bad natures.
> --
> ~Julie Kale~
Read for context, Julie. MCVS said "a fool believes that there is NO god".
You
said "do not believe in god". Do you equate believing that there is no god
with
not believing in god? If so, you'd better re-read the atheist handbook,
child.
Come on, I shouldn't have to be pointing this out to you. You're the ones
with
the mind uncluttered by superstition. You are the ones who truly see
propositions in their true rational position.
And he does not imply that. That attitude is not inherent in anything that
is
said.
I can comment on how that question might be answered: You ARE a
bad person, I AM a bad person, Mother Theresa found herself to BE a bad
person. St. Francis of Assisi WAS a bad person, Billy Graham thought
himself to BE a bad person. Paul WAS a very bad person.
Only God is good. Only God deserves to live in heaven, we all deserve
nothing for the sins that we've committed. I am not a better person for
accepting Christ, although, through His power I can be. But that is not
me, I've died and Christ lives in me. (this is the theory, anyway cause
sometimes that bad 'ol dude is still alive and well, and if that were all
there was to me than I would be hopeless.)
Bateau
lubucrate:
>There is an excellent Bible study series called "Tough Questions" that deals
>with this type of stuff. How do I know God exists? How could God let bad
>things happen? Is there really a heaven? I recommend it to anyone asking
>these questions, or to Bible study leaders dealing with a lot of seekers.
lol
I got that out in year 10 from the school library
it's a flimsy little 80's publication that's barely more than a pamphlet,
and nearly prompted me to write another book refuting that one.
John Cassidy
JulieKale <jk...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Aydf3.11777$1K2.1...@news2.mia...
> Josh Marihugh wrote in message <7ljc77$cai$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
> >God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's
law)
> >blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all for
> >man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
>
>
> >God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal with
> >them...
>
> Yes he does. It it shameful for a woman to speak in chuch. Don't you read
> the thing?
> ~Julie Kale~
The women in Corinth dressed with diamonds plaited into their hair and
shredded
each other. This is why Paul says that it is best for them not to talk in
church.
It wasn't doing any of them any good.
Angel
As for the question... you never did answer it. Why do you waste so much of
your time discounting Christianity? You seem to waste more of your time on
Christianity than many Christians... hmm...
Rev Chuck <cdub@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> wrote in message
> Fuck xianity. I'm in it for political reasons. If it's the
> unqualified truth, if it's not going to die out, why do you push
> it on everyone else? Why do you push school prayer? Why do you
> wish to control what I read? Why do you want women to have no
> freedom over their own bodies?
>
> Angel wrote:
> >
> > Question:
> > If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth then why
do
that
> > something that is fake would die out rather quickly, especially under
the
> > reason has not died out. Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
> > trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your
heart
heart.
> > Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot
die
> > out.
> > Aaron
Angel
> >trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your
heart
> >and is trying to draw you near to Him.
>
Take the first step Julie, leave the Christians alone and I am sure they (at
least I) will leave you alone. The way you talk about it makes me think you
have had a bad religious experience and are retaliating and you are blaming
God for something religion did. Don't associate religion with God.
> >Do not continue to harden your heart.
> >Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot
die
> >out.
> >In Jesus name,
>
> I think it will. One day you christians will take the blinders off and see
> how dehumanizing your religion is. And you will let it go. You personally
> might not...but it will happen sooner or later.
It won't happen at all Julie. I will die following Jesus. I will be in
Heaven with Him and that is that. :) You are right about the dehuminizing
part though.. in a way. Christians should be taking the focus off of man
(and woman) and focus only on Jesus, our creator. Christianity as this earth
knows it will die out when the body of believers is raptured and the Holy
Spirit is removed. I pray you will not have to go through that Julie.
Aaron
Angel
> ok christian. lets see if you can understand something. you want me to
answer
> your god's call. i don't believe in god. so, how can i answer the call
of
> something i don't believe exists?
>
> alt.atheism#444
>
> "Not a prisoner,
> I'm a free man,
> And my blood is my own now.
> Don't care where the past was,
> I know where I'm going."
> Iron Maiden (The Prisoner)
>
>
exist? I don't believe that Hitler lived. Does that mean that he did not? I
do not believe in Atheism. Does that mean it does not exist?
Your statement, "I don't believe in god." should be I don't believe that
there is a god, shouldn't it? You are atheist aren't you?
BTW, the reason we are posting to alt atheism is because for some reason,
this whole feed is being cross posted. Why are you posting to mcr and rmc?
Angel
Show me ANY widely supported study that proves the non existence of God. I
shall become an atheist along side of you if you give me proof that my God
does not exist!
Robert E. Charles <bob...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:3782C4B4...@ptdprolog.net...
Angel
does not make that claim.
Angel
the age he is referring to is at hand then the verses will apply. "It seems
to me.." is not a valid argument.news:7luq6c$n05$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com...
promise.
> > > Why do you still follow him?
> >
Angel
debating with you. Answer a question or let the argument die. Because you
disagree with Christianity, you discount it. IF it is such a joke then why
are YOU wasting so much time on it. Don't tell me that you want to save ME
from Christianity. Your attitude shows different. Your attacks are not on me
but are on Christianity. Are you afraid of answering my question or are you
not able to?
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
news:7lulpm$sra$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> Angel <amon...@rochester.rr.com,nospam> wrote:
> > Question:
> > If Christianity is not to believed in and is a farce and a myth
> > then why do you spend so much of your time trying to discount it?
> > It seems to me that something that is fake would die out rather
> > quickly, especially under the pressure of scrutiny. Christianity
> > gets a lot of scrutiny but for some reason has not died out.
>
J. Thomas Ford
Angel wrote:
>
> > >Obviously, the fact that you spend so much time
> > >trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your
> heart
> > >and is trying to draw you near to Him.
> >
> > No, you christians just won't leave me alone.
>
> Take the first step Julie, leave the Christians alone and I am sure they (at
> least I) will leave you alone.
Not likely. Did you sleep through your Sunday School classes on
'evangelism?"
> The way you talk about it makes me think you
> have had a bad religious experience and are retaliating and you are blaming
> God for something religion did.
Actually, some of us have had very, very GOOD religious experiences.
Just not with Judeo-Christianity.
> Don't associate religion with God.
Eh-why not? Being an all-powerful creator od everything means you get
responsibility for _everything_, not just the good parts.
> > >Do not continue to harden your heart.
> > >Answer His call and see why Christianity has not, will not, and cannot
> die
> > >out.
> > >In Jesus name,
> >
> > I think it will. One day you christians will take the blinders off and see
> > how dehumanizing your religion is. And you will let it go. You personally
> > might not...but it will happen sooner or later.
> It won't happen at all Julie. I will die following Jesus. I will be in
> Heaven with Him and that is that. :) You are right about the dehuminizing
> part though.. in a way. Christians should be taking the focus off of man
> (and woman) and focus only on Jesus, our creator. Christianity as this earth
> knows it will die out when the body of believers is raptured and the Holy
> Spirit is removed. I pray you will not have to go through that Julie.
Actually, I'd rather get it over with. Any chance of speeding things up
a bit?
> Aaron
>
> > ~Julie Kale~
> > Truth leads to misery, and then it sets you free.
> >
> >
> >
--
"Apparently, the Wiccan Creed is evil because it runs counter to
mainstream Judeo-Christian military beliefs of truly loving your fellow
man by training to drop napalm on him."
Peter Walker
<jtf...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> The way you talk about it makes me think you
>> have had a bad religious experience and are retaliating and you are blaming
>> God for something religion did.
>
>Actually, some of us have had very, very GOOD religious experiences.
>Just not with Judeo-Christianity.
Actually, I had very good experiences even with Christianity; those bad
experiences I simply chalked up to "Christians who are missing the true
message". Eventually I decided, however, that it was simply incredible.
A pretty fairy-tale, but just that. As emotionally appealing as I found
it, I simply could not buy its claims with their wholesale lack of
supporting evidence, nor could I find any convincing reason its claims
had superior merit over those of other religions. So I bid my
Christianity a wistful farewell.
And that's when I got to see the hatefulness it breeds first hand.
Nothing brings out the hate, arrogance, and clannishness in a
Christrian like being confronted with an apostate.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | EMAIL: p...@spacsun.rice.edu
Rice University | WWW: http://spac-201.rice.edu/
Dept. of Space Physics & Astronomy | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
g&g
Angel wrote in message ...
>These verses you list speak of the end of the age. They are prophetic. When
>the age he is referring to is at hand then the verses will apply. "It seems
>to me.." is not a valid argument.
Glenn R. wrote:
It is not a valid argument for you because you don't want to look at these
verses honestly. You want to distort them any way you can so that they no
longer say what they say. You cannot just eliminate out of hand a statement
that clearly says that members of Jesus' audience would still be alive when
the end came. Just because it is uncomfortable for you to look at these
glaring inconsistencies does not mean that you can conveniently rewrite
them. Jesus, as god, was either lying to these people or this is just one
more example showing that your whole belief is a myth and nothing more.
Either way, these few passages pose a dilema for christians. You have a
lying god or a myth.
g&g
Angel wrote in message ...
>Show me ANY widely supported study that proves the non existence of God. I
>shall become an atheist along side of you if you give me proof that my God
>does not exist!
Glenn R. wrote:
Boy this is a novel approach. Never heard that one before. This question
of yours shows that you have absolutely no understanding of proof. First
off, with only an extremely few exceptions it is impossible to "prove" the
negative about anything. The burden of proof is on the person making the
positive claim. It always has been that way and always will be that way.
For a very simple analogy let us assume that I make a statement to you that
I saw a car floating through the air above all the other cars on the
freeway. I make this statement seriously and with obvious sincerity. I
truly believe the car was suspended in air and that it was impossible to
have been a magicians trick or any other illusion. Now, you could
absolutely never "prove" that it didn't happen. Everything you say to try
to disprove it would meet with my response that your refutation did not take
away that I actually saw it. In order for me to expect you to believe it, I
have the total burden of proof that it happened. The more outlandish the
claim, the more demanding the proof. What is really amazing is that most
christains would never believe, without significant supporting evidence or
proof, that a car could float in air yet they willingly believe much more
unusual supernatural things about their religion with no proof or credible
evidence.
Now, if you saw an article in today's paper about a guy who built a
car-shaped balloon that was strikingly realistic and that he had attached it
to his own car with nearly invisible tethers and drove down the freeway, you
would probably now believe that I had seen a floating car and had been
successfully duped by the ruse. You would, no doubt, show me the article so
that I would be equally informed. If I were to then behave as most
christians I would say that your news article was a fabrication by someone,
probably a scientist or atheist, who just couldn't stand to look at new
information and accept it as truth and, instead, had to make up a crazy
story to try to justify their distorted view of the world.
g&g
Angel wrote in message ...
>does not make that claim.
Glenn R. wrote:
Then you have not read your bible very thoroughly. There are probably 10 or
15 references in the bible that the last days are to occur before many of
the believers died. That clearly means that the end would happen in the
first century CE. Many of those references have been posted in several
notes in "talk.atheism" in the last few days.
>BÂnkhão <BÂnkhão...@thai.net> wrote in message
>news:7ludss$ogf$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com...
>>
>> Johnson <@alltel.net> wrote in message
>news:7lp746$nd2$1...@news1.alltel.net...
>> > I didn't answer any others, because I'm young, and don't have the time
>to
>> > look them up...but I am smart enough not to tell my age... I don't
know
>> > when Jesus will come back, but rest assured, he will.
>>
g&g
Angel wrote in message ...
>> >trying to discount Christianity tells me that God is speaking to your
>heart
>> >and is trying to draw you near to Him.
>>
>> No, you christians just won't leave me alone.
>
>Take the first step Julie, leave the Christians alone and I am sure they
(at
>least I) will leave you alone.
Glenn R. wrote:
Your comment is wrong. Your particular brand of christianity may not be the
"witnessing" type, but there are some versions of christianity that take
very seriously the parts of the bible where they are commanded to preach to
all nations, etc. They do this all the time and in a very irritating and
rude manner. I believe it is those types of christians to whom Julie is
referring.
g&g
John Cassidy wrote in message <7lvce2$fth$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>JulieKale <jk...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Aydf3.11777$1K2.1...@news2.mia...
>> Josh Marihugh wrote in message <7ljc77$cai$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>> >God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's
>law)
>> >blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all
for
>> >man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Why does god require all this bloodshed?
>>
>> >God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal
with
>> >them...
>>
>> Yes he does. It it shameful for a woman to speak in chuch. Don't you read
>> the thing?
>> ~Julie Kale~
>
>The women in Corinth dressed with diamonds plaited into their hair and
>shredded
>each other. This is why Paul says that it is best for them not to talk in
>church.
>It wasn't doing any of them any good.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
Boy! That is really a stretch. Certainly men did equally silly things to
each other. Why did Paul only pick on the women who behaved immaturely?
And isn't he showing extreme prejudice against women here? He makes his
statements in such a way to include all women, not just those who are, in
his opinion, misbehaving. He is guilty of stereotyping, is he not?
g&g
Bateau wrote in message <37831cf9...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 20:39:24 GMT, "TopDown" <dou...@gte.spamblock-net> did
>lubucrate:
>
>>There is an excellent Bible study series called "Tough Questions" that
deals
>>with this type of stuff. How do I know God exists? How could God let bad
>>things happen? Is there really a heaven? I recommend it to anyone asking
>>these questions, or to Bible study leaders dealing with a lot of seekers.
>
>lol
>I got that out in year 10 from the school library
>it's a flimsy little 80's publication that's barely more than a pamphlet,
>and nearly prompted me to write another book refuting that one.
Glenn R. wrote:
Me too! I cannot believe how simple and shallow it arguments are. The same
holds for "Evidence that demands a verdict." Really lame stuff.
g&g
John Cassidy wrote in message <7lv6iq$2j0
<big snip>
>I can comment on how that question might be answered: You ARE a
>bad person, I AM a bad person, Mother Theresa found herself to BE a bad
>person. St. Francis of Assisi WAS a bad person, Billy Graham thought
>himself to BE a bad person. Paul WAS a very bad person.
>
>Only God is good.
Glenn R. wrote:
Just because all these people say they were bad doesn't mean that everyone
is bad. They were taught from early childhood (perhaps excepting Paul) how
bad they were and they believed it. As a counter argument, you can tell
people that I avow that I am not a bad person and never have been. I avow
that anyone, including your god, who says that I am a bad person or have
ever been a bad person is absolutely wrong. I have never ever "sinned" or
even come close to it. I am a good human being. From now on anytime you
assert that all humans are bad, you are lying because you have information
contrary to that assertion.
g&g
John Cassidy wrote in message >> > miracles, even in front of those who
>
<big snip>
>And yet, even the "historical" content of the bible argues against you.
Glenn R. wrote:
This argument is completely lame. If you are going to us the "historical"
accuracy of the bible to say that it makes the bible legitimate, then you
have to include ALL of the historical anecdotes, not just the ones you
choose. There are far more historical INaccuracies than there are
accuracies. Therefore, the ""historical" content of the bible argues
against you."
In other writings of yours you seem to be telling us that your faith is
justified by your exhaustive study and questioning. I see your arguments as
anything but enlightened or deep, however. It doesn't seem to me that you
have asked any really difficult questions. And it is absolutely clear that
you are quite good at making the bible say whatever you want it to say and
ignoring completely the parts which don't support your point of view or are
not so easily twisted to fit your desired ends. For example, when trying to
explain why Jesus was wrong about predicting the end time you just glossed
over the whole issue. The bible states clearly and unambiguously that the
end time was imminent. It clearly says that some people would not die
before the end time. That means that any other interpretation you may want
to use for "this generation" is meaningless because the intent of the
message clearly defines the correct interpretation. Also, if Jesus can't be
trusted on this most important subject how can he be trusted on any subject.
He is either god or he is not. If he can state emphatically something about
which he knows nothing and is obviously lying then he can't be trusted on
any topic. In other words, by stating clearly that the end time was soon,
(by your explanation he really didn't know it would be soon), he is
intentionally deceiving his followers. Not a very nice thing for a god to
do to his believers.
<another big snip>
Brian Trosko
: Prove God does not exist. Do the same you ask of us.
Prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist. If you can't do it, then it's
rational for me to believe in invisible pink unicorns.
See what a horrible argument that is? Furthermore, I don't ask you to
prove God's nonexistence. I simply ask that you see that your belief in
God isn't rational. Beyond that, if you chose to examine that belief with
a rational eye, you would cease to hold it. To word it more strongly,
your belief in God can *not* be rational.
: shall become an atheist along side of you if you give me proof that my God
: does not exist!
Well, to do that I would need to know what your God is; you would need to
define him for me. It is possible that the God you define isn't testable,
in which case no test can constitute evidence against his existence, but
that hardly means he exists. If I tell you there's an invisible dragon
living in my garage, you'd want to see him. But he's invisible, so you
can't. Maybe you'd suggest throwing flower in the air to reveal his
physical presence, or using an infrared camera to record his fire, but I
might then say that he's intangible and that he breathes heatless flame.
I can define him in such a way that I render every conceiveable test of
his presence useless.
Does that mean that he exists? Hardly. In fact, it would be hard for me
to say how a dragon that can't be observed and can't be tested in any way
differs from a dragon that doesn't exist.
But that aside, maybe you'd give your God testable attributes, or
inconsistent ones. Many Christians say their God is three things:
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
That God can't exist. The fact that evil exists indicates that such a God
is logically impossible.
As another try, let me posit a sort of anti-argument from design.
Consider the ichnumeon wasp. This wasp reproduces in an odd way. It
searches for a caterpillar, and stings it. The sting doesn't kill the
caterpillar, but rather paralyzes it. This is so that when the wasp lays
its eggs inside the caterpillar's body, and they hatch, they will have a
ready supply of fresh, living meat on which to feed.
If *that's* the sort of system your God likes to design, well, let's just
say I'm rather glad I've never had the pleasure of his company.
Brian Trosko
: He made no such promise. Show me where in the Bible it says that? My Bible
: does not make that claim.
Yes, but your Bible didn't mention the bit where God sends bears to maul
some children who were making fun of one of his prophets, so you're hardly
working from a complete version.
Brian Trosko
: These verses you list speak of the end of the age. They are prophetic. When
: the age he is referring to is at hand then the verses will apply. "It seems
: to me.." is not a valid argument.
That's garbage. Utter crap.
: > "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they
: see
: > the Son of man coming in his kingdom." [Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1.]
Read the words, dammit. "There are some standing here who won't die until
the Son of man comes in his kingdom."
Regardless of how inconvenient it might be for you to face what those
words mean, that's what they mean. Know what? Everyone who was standing
there when he said that is dead. Dead for almost 2,000 years.
The only way out is to claim that those words really don't mean what he
said, that they mean something else. Well, then, if Christ wanted people
to think what you think he meant, why didn't he just say *that* instead?
He didn't. He said what he said.
Oh well. Just ignore it, then.
JulieKale
>
>Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.11ea54223...@news.campuscwix.net...
>> In article <7lp762$ndd$1...@news1.alltel.net>, "Johnson" <@alltel.net>
>> says...
>> > [snip]"put down and discriminate women"??? Please explain
>> Genesis:
>> 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
>
>Where's the insult. Man is created from dust. At least the thing that a
>woman
>was created from was refined at the time. Also, a number of Christian women
>have found a meaningful symbolism in this. Eve was not created from Adam's
>skull, so she is not superior, not from his foot so she is not inferior,
but
>from
>his side, where she belongs.
That is your interpretation. Do you deny that the 'fact' that Adam was
created first has been used to dehumanize women for centuries?
>> 3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
>Man cursed to toil to gain food from the earth. So what?
Women has the double punishment of being man's subserviant.
>> 19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels
>
>This one is stupid. The Angels (who knew God-I'd say a shade better than
>Lot {the _sage_ you are quoting here}) said **"YOU MUST NOT DO THIS EVIL
>THING"**. Read what you post about, pal!
>
>And of course the Bible extols the virtue of Lot doesn't it?!?!?!? This is
>the
>most recurring non-argument I see on this topic -- and the amount of
>research that is done into this one really doesn't impress me.
>You must have exercised *faith* on quoting that one, guy.
What is righteous about a man willing to turn his daughters over to a bunch
of perverts? I haven't figured that one out yet. Perhaps you could help me?
>> Exodus:
>> 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
>That's one way of looking at it. Is that the only way? Are you being
>dogmatic here?
>I see it as a general prohibition against a covetous heart. Desiring what
>you don't
>have to the point of depriving others.
Women are property in the OT. They bought and sold into marriage.
>> 21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
>> 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
>> Leviticus:
>> 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
>> 12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
>> 15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
>> 19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged
>> Numbers:
>> 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
>> 5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
>> 31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty
>> Deuteronomy:
>> 21:11-14 Rape manual
>Wrong verses.
>That's only if the only way that a female servant can "please"
>her master is by sex. If you want to take that way then fine. Can't
>then say that the bible supports this, only that your interpretation
>does. Mine doesn't.
Nonsense. Amazing how you guys change meanings around to suit your
arguments.
>> 22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
>> 22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
>
>Here again seduced=rape. And I guess that does qualify if you are a
>rabid feminist. In the city, the woman had to attempt to cry out, otherwise
>it was consentual. The seducer and the seducee were culpable. That's
>why the one below qualifies for non-urban adultary. I can only find
>conservative preachers who are a dogmatic on their interpretation as
>you seem to be.
IS that a FACT? No, it wasn't really 'rape', after all, cause she didn't
yell out, she must have wanted it. That is the biggest fucking load of
nonsense I have ever heard in my life. Yet this is WHAT YOU are saying here.
Well, christian, here's a little ditty for ya. I was raped, in the city, I
did not cry out cause I had a knife to my face. I guess that means that I
GAVE HIM MY PERMISSION, huh? Wow, it's all so clear to me now. NO WONDER the
priest said it was all my fault. You christians are some sick ass mother
fuckers. Why don't you just face reality? The cold hard facts is that your
bible says a woman has to marry her rapist.
>Not in the context you mean it, no.
>
>His "son" was the part of himself that could be tortured and killed. Jesus
>said "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." "We are one." This is the
>same mistaken notion that I had as a non-believer.
>
>Here is the way I understand redemption: God is all powerful. He could
>have had a perfect universe. His sense of perfection had to die. In
allowing
>us freedom, and letting us mess up the cosmos for a time, he is actually
>engaging in what he finds to be the greater perfection: loving that which
is
>other than Himself. Jesus Christ is the lamb "slain from the foundation of
>the world".
Even so, that part of himself supposedly rose again after three days. There
was no sacrifice, and three days to an entity which has always existed is
miniscule.
>Yeah, right. Paranoid Macho Human males speak of their Lovingkindness
>and their gentleness, right? All the evidence does not fit into your tight
>little
>categories. Better get some lubricant.
Oh but it does. Pointing out your 'good' verses does not change the fact
that you have very bad verses to go right along with them.
>This is of course characteristic of a chauvinistic God, right:
>Hosea 3: 31The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again,
>though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the
>LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the
>sacred raisin cakes."
>
>That's the He-man role isn't it? Love your adulterous wife?
Moses said to stone adulterous women. Do you sense a contradiction?
--
JulieKale
>
>JulieKale <jk...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Aydf3.11777$1K2.1...@news2.mia...
>> Josh Marihugh wrote in message <7ljc77$cai$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>> >God had to sacrifice His Son because the sin of man requires (by God's
>law)
>> >blood sacrifice. The only blood good enough to atone once and for all
for
>> >man's sin was the blood of a sinless man...GOD's Son, Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Why does god require all this bloodshed?
>>
>> >God does NOT discriminate against women! Post examples and I'll deal
with
>> >them...
>>
>> Yes he does. It it shameful for a woman to speak in chuch. Don't you read
>> the thing?
>> ~Julie Kale~
>
>The women in Corinth dressed with diamonds plaited into their hair and
>shredded
>each other. This is why Paul says that it is best for them not to talk in
>church.
>It wasn't doing any of them any good.
Heh. Okay...YA.
JulieKale
>> The religion itself is based on subjective feelings. Faith. There is
>nothing
>> verifiable about christianity. If there was, faith would not be required.
>> Thus, there is nothing scientific about it either.
>
>There is nothing 'scientific' about the laws of logic either. Big whoop!
Logic makes science.
>You know in all my reading of the Bible, I would have thought that there
>were measurements and repeatable experiments in there somewhere.
>:)
And that has what do with what, exactly? There is always a little truth
thrown in the myth for good measure.
>> >>Question Three: In your mind, will Christianity eventually prevail
>> >
>> >It already has, does, and is.
>> >
>> >>(with the second coming of Jesus)
>> >
>> >Yup, that, too, in God's good time.
>>
>> That's a belief.
>
>I'm sure that those words did not startle him.
>"What! You mean I've been believing in a belief all this time!?!"
That belief has been presented as fact. Did you miss that part?
>Read for context, Julie. MCVS said "a fool believes that there is NO god".
>You
>said "do not believe in god". Do you equate believing that there is no god
>with
>not believing in god? If so, you'd better re-read the atheist handbook,
>child.
>
>Come on, I shouldn't have to be pointing this out to you. You're the ones
>with
>the mind uncluttered by superstition. You are the ones who truly see
>propositions in their true rational position.
Who's "YOU"? I'm agnostic, for what it's worth. But I do think atheism is
more rational than theism.
>And he does not imply that. That attitude is not inherent in anything that
>is
>said.
Did you miss this part?
"And
> >fools always run into a ditch somewhere and end their "importance" as
> >a natural consequence of the very seeds of destruction which are sown
> >within."
The implication is that atheists will pay dearly for the 'natural
consequence' of simply being the way they are. IE, destructive.
>I can comment on how that question might be answered: You ARE a
>bad person, I AM a bad person, Mother Theresa found herself to BE a bad
>person. St. Francis of Assisi WAS a bad person, Billy Graham thought
>himself to BE a bad person. Paul WAS a very bad person.
>
>Only God is good. Only God deserves to live in heaven, we all deserve
>nothing for the sins that we've committed. I am not a better person for
>accepting Christ, although, through His power I can be. But that is not
>me, I've died and Christ lives in me. (this is the theory, anyway cause
>sometimes that bad 'ol dude is still alive and well, and if that were all
>there was to me than I would be hopeless.)
Yes, we are all so bad and evil. Guilt is very big in religion.
Does god allow you to love yourself? Could you do so if you did not have
your religion?