Heaven
Dave Haas
All this discussion about death, mourning and heaven got me to thinking?
How do Christians and others who believe in a heaven view it? Although I
personally do not believe in such a place, I have always thought that
others believed that in heaven people will be reunited with their loved
ones and friends and although there would be no sex that everyone would be
happy and live forever in a state of emotional bliss. Is this a correct
view? How do others view heaven and what is the basis for your belief? It
seems there may be more that one interpretation of exactly what heaven will
be like if it exists.
D. Haas
Peter van Velzen
<MPG.10771b49f...@news.campus.mci.net>...
Heaven: Above us
Only Sky.
In the old pagan days heaven was just that,
however it was also the place where the Gods were:
Mercury/Hermes
Venus/Aphrodite/Isthar/Vishnu?
Mars/Ares/Indra?
Jupiter/Zeus/Amon/Mardoek?/Sjiwa?
Saturn/Kronos
Helios/Appolo/Ra/Ahoera Mazda
To become immortal one should ascend to this place.
So when a comet was seen, shortly after the death of Julius Caesar
It was thought to me Julius' soul ascending to heaven.
Of course when scientists found out, what the sky really was:
A vast emptiness
Those who did not believe in Nirvana,
came up with less physical ideas
However that was in times
long after the bible was written.
So the funny thing is
today's Christians
have very opposite views
from those people they claim to believe.
But forgive them
For they don't know what they are doing!
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Elroy Willis
>All this discussion about death, mourning and heaven got me to thinking?
>How do Christians and others who believe in a heaven view it? Although I
>personally do not believe in such a place, I have always thought that
>others believed that in heaven people will be reunited with their loved
>ones and friends and although there would be no sex that everyone would be
>happy and live forever in a state of emotional bliss. Is this a correct
>view? How do others view heaven and what is the basis for your belief? It
>seems there may be more that one interpretation of exactly what heaven will
>be like if it exists.
It seems to me that any thoughts of heaven must exclude any sort of
ideas of any physical sensations. Emotional sensations maybe, but the
emotional sensations are caused by physical sensations to begin with,
so they can be left out as I see it. What's left? Nothing. A dead
mind and rotting carcus.
--
Elroy
Ed. Pearlstein
>All this discussion about death, mourning and heaven got me to thinking?
>How do Christians and others who believe in a heaven view it? Although I
>personally do not believe in such a place, I have always thought that
>others believed that in heaven people will be reunited with their loved
>ones and friends and although there would be no sex that everyone would be
>happy and live forever in a state of emotional bliss. Is this a correct
>view? How do others view heaven and what is the basis for your belief? It
It's a comforting myth--for some people.
Kestrel_MP
Dave Haas wrote in message ...
>
>
>All this discussion about death, mourning and heaven got me to thinking?
>How do Christians and others who believe in a heaven view it? Although I
>personally do not believe in such a place, I have always thought that
>others believed that in heaven people will be reunited with their loved
>ones and friends and although there would be no sex that everyone would be
>happy and live forever in a state of emotional bliss. Is this a correct
>view? How do others view heaven and what is the basis for your belief? It
>be like if it exists.
>
Its hard to say what Heaven is like, after all I haven't been there yet!
But to hazard a few guesses...
1) Some level of non-exclusionary union with God, the Bible talks of being
with God, walking with God, but not becoming part of God.
2) A relationship with those others who are there, friends, loved ones, all
the redeemed of history, but sadly not everyone, there is another place
too...
3) Eternal. What does that mean? Not sure, some philosophers have described
it as being endless time, others see eternity as the absence of time.
4) Sex. Don't know. God created the act for a purpose (a no, not just
procreation), so I see no reason to believe that some version of 'sex' may
exist in Heaven.
5) Death. Nope, the Bible's real clear that you won't die in Heaven.
Is it physical? hmm... thats the touchy one isn't it.
As a Neo-Platonic/Romantic thinker I believe that the so called "physical
world" is the one lacking in substance. I view Heaven as an archetypal realm
of which this is a shadow. (C.S. Lewis expresses that concept very well in
his writings, both fictional and non-fictional.)
I am not even positive that Heaven is the ultimate goal. The Bible speaks of
New Earth, the governance of the Saints, all of which leads some
philosophers and theologians to posit an extension of this universe. In such
a view Heaven would be a periodic resting point for an eternal work.
Does that clarify anything?
Probably not! But I tried.
Love in Christ,
Hope to see you in Heaven!
kestrel
o logos n odos ton ouranon
(The Word is the Way to Heaven)
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <360e9471....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>It seems to me that any thoughts of heaven must exclude any sort of
>ideas of any physical sensations. Emotional sensations maybe, but the
>emotional sensations are caused by physical sensations to begin with,
>so they can be left out as I see it. What's left? Nothing. A dead
>mind and rotting carcus.
>
>--
>Elroy
Who said their would be no physical sensations?
If this place is an image of the Heavenly form, then Heaven will be the
first place we really see the physical!
hope to see you there,
kestrel_mp
Peter Besenbruch
wrote:
>Are atheists more interested in heaven than people who read religious
>newsgroups, or is it a reluctance to respond to crossposted threads?
Nah, it was posted from alt.atheism. The Christians aren't touching
it. I think it reflects more the deep level of trust between the
groups.<g>
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <360e9471....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>>It seems to me that any thoughts of heaven must exclude any sort of
>>ideas of any physical sensations. Emotional sensations maybe, but the
>>emotional sensations are caused by physical sensations to begin with,
>>so they can be left out as I see it. What's left? Nothing. A dead
>>mind and rotting carcus.
>Who said their would be no physical sensations?
Logic dictates this. No physical body = no physical sensations.
>If this place is an image of the Heavenly form, then Heaven will be the
>first place we really see the physical!
Weird man. Care to expand on this?
>hope to see you there,
Doubt it.
--
Elroy
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <360e0a4...@news.cyberramp.net>...
>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>
>>Elroy Willis wrote in message <360e9471....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>
>>>It seems to me that any thoughts of heaven must exclude any sort of
>>>ideas of any physical sensations. Emotional sensations maybe, but the
>>>emotional sensations are caused by physical sensations to begin with,
>>>so they can be left out as I see it. What's left? Nothing. A dead
>>>mind and rotting carcus.
>
>>Who said their would be no physical sensations?
>
>Logic dictates this. No physical body = no physical sensations.
Who said there would be no physical body? Why do you make the assumption
that Heaven will be any less physical than this world?
>
>>If this place is an image of the Heavenly form, then Heaven will be the
>>first place we really see the physical!
>
>Weird man. Care to expand on this?
>
In Platonic thought all things we see, or interact with, or feel, are each
the 'shadow' or image of a perfect 'Heavenly form'. In such a world-view,
one could correctly state that Heaven is the 'real', while the universe as
we know it is somewhat less than 'real'. I'm not arguing against the reality
of this world, but I am postulating that Heaven will be the fulfillment of
things we see on earth but in part.
C.S. Lewis was the best modern proponent of such a world view, but for more
'official' theology you should take a look at Justin Martyr, Clement of
Alxandria, Origen of Alexandria, John Scotus Irigena, Jon Duns Scotus, Peter
Abelard, Rene Descartes and Bishop Berkeley(who goes even farther). Rudolf
Otto and William James also have explored the theological implications of
such concepts. For non-Christian(at least non-Orthodox) proponents of a
Platonic world view see Plato(of course!), Plotinus, and Ralph Waldo
Emerson. I'm sure I'm leaving several dozen good philosophers out, but the
list is comprehensive enough to give you an intro to Idealism. Overall
Lewis' work is the most approachable, and I find it an eclectic, modern
blend of the teachings offered by the more scholarly advocates of Platonism.
Why are we so arrogant as to believe that what we see is the limit of
reality?
>>hope to see you there,
>
>Doubt it.
>
>
There's an open invitation you know, and the price of admission has already
been paid, no tellin' who'll show up!
>--
>Elroy
Love in Christ,
kestrel_mp
logos odos
yang hu
> There's an open invitation you know, and the price of admission has already
> been paid, no tellin' who'll show up!
Gandhi?
Yang
#28
Kestrel_MP
yang hu wrote in message <6uot9q$a...@news.service.uci.edu>...
I am not sure what you mean by that.
kestrel_mp
Elroy Willis
I suspect he was asking if Ghandi would be in heaven.
--
Elroy
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <36115cff....@news.cyberramp.net>...
It is impossible to definitively state this person is in heaven, whereas
this person is not. Such speculations are unfruitful, and meaningless.
<Sigh>
But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from Heaven.
He lived a life dedicated to the truths of life, and though I did not know
his heart, his example was certainly inspiring. Whether he is in Heaven or
not depended on his relationship with the Word of God, in whatever form God
chose to reveal himself to Gandhi.
kestrel_mp
o logos n odos
P.S. I expect flak on this one from both sides!
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <36115cff....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>>>yang hu wrote in message <6uot9q$a...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>>>>Kestrel_MP
>>>>> There's an open invitation you know, and the price of admission has
>>>already
>>>>> been paid, no tellin' who'll show up!
>>>>Gandhi?
>>>I am not sure what you mean by that.
>>I suspect he was asking if Ghandi would be in heaven.
>It is impossible to definitively state this person is in heaven, whereas
>this person is not. Such speculations are unfruitful, and meaningless.
No shit? Imagine that.
><Sigh>
Yes, <sigh>
>But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from Heaven.
You are speculating on your god's behalf? I thought people can't know
what your god will really do. You are hoping for the best, and that
good honest people will make it to your heaven, even though they may
not even believe in your particular flavor of religious beliefs?
>He lived a life dedicated to the truths of life, and though I did not know
>his heart, his example was certainly inspiring. Whether he is in Heaven or
>not depended on his relationship with the Word of God, in whatever form God
>chose to reveal himself to Gandhi.
So your god is really above all religions? The particular sect or
denomination, or even major differences, are really just irrelevant?
Are the heaven's gate people in heaven now? Meaningless
questions, yes?
--
Elroy
yang hu
> But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from Heaven.
> his heart, his example was certainly inspiring.
> P.S. I expect flak on this one from both sides!
not from me, I am perfectly happy with Christians who can see the
humanity in someone who is not a Christian....
Yang
#28
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <3611b5d2....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>>But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from
Heaven.
>
>You are speculating on your god's behalf? I thought people can't know
>what your god will really do. You are hoping for the best, and that
>good honest people will make it to your heaven, even though they may
>not even believe in your particular flavor of religious beliefs?
>
I do know what God has said through the Bible, I know what can be learned
through philosophic inquiry, I know what can be learned by examining the
general revelation of science given to all. I do not know the mind of God,
but I can make limited guesses based on what He has revealed of Himself. If
you would like I can go into the whole inclusivist position, and that may
even be a good thing.
Everyone on this NG seems to feel that only exclusivists are Christians, in
fact much of the Anti-Christian slander posted out here is more specifically
Anti-Calvinist, Anti-Exclusivist. Atheists(And most Theists for that matter)
seem blissfully ignorant of the existence of Free Will Theology,
Inclusivism, Neo-Platonism (all of which I subscribe to in one fashion or
another), classical liberalism, process theology, (both of which I reject,
or accept on limited basis only) and other Neoorthodox and/or Neoliberal
viewpoints. Most Christians are not misogynistic, predestenationist, hell
preaching thugs.
>>He lived a life dedicated to the truths of life, and though I did not know
>>his heart, his example was certainly inspiring. Whether he is in Heaven or
>>not depended on his relationship with the Word of God, in whatever form
God
>>chose to reveal himself to Gandhi.
>
>So your god is really above all religions? The particular sect or
>denomination, or even major differences, are really just irrelevant?
>Are the heaven's gate people in heaven now? Meaningless
>questions, yes?
>
>--
>Elroy
No, actually the question about being above religions is a very good point.
As a matter of fact I believe that no one religion gives a complete and
accurate picture of God, and I do believe that on the whole sects,
denominations and religious divisions are irrelevant. Personal response to
the Revelation of divine truth is more important than subscription of one
creed over another.
That does not mean I believe all creeds are equally valid. (For instance, I
reject creeds which call for human sacrifice, or involve sexual perversion,
or which call for Satan worship.) In fact, I believe Christianity is the
best religion, and the most correct creed. I do not however reject all truth
claims by all other religions.
I do believe in conversion, BTW, so I am not, by any means a pluralist!
Love in Christ,
kestrel_mp
o logos n odos.
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>>>But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from
>>>Heaven.
>>You are speculating on your god's behalf? I thought people can't know
>>what your god will really do. You are hoping for the best, and that
>>good honest people will make it to your heaven, even though they may
>>not even believe in your particular flavor of religious beliefs?
>I do know what God has said through the Bible, I know what can be learned
>through philosophic inquiry,
And if the two conflict? What then? Do you say to yourself "This
is illogical, it can't be true", or do you say "We can't know what god
really means or intended?" Or do you make up some existence which
is "somewhat real" in nature, which contains some form of logic based
on an obscure sense of reality?
>I know what can be learned by examining the general revelation of science
>given to all. I do not know the mind of God,
So you are perfectly willing to accept scientific findings and
theories which may discredit your current beliefs? What is the point
at which you are willing to say "This makes sense, logically and
scientifically", and cast aside the idea of "We can't understand god
or his reasons?"
>but I can make limited guesses based on what He has revealed of Himself.
If you can honestly get past the genesis story, without having to say
that people just can't understand their god, then you have gone too
far already. Your god has at one point or another, in the OT and NT,
exhibited every emotion that man has exhibited. Jealousy, hatred,
etc, etc. Do you see why you are able to make guesses on what he
may do? It's because your god was made up by man, and was given
all the similar characteristics, yet given an additional few such as
the omni qualities to make him seem above man.
>If you would like I can go into the whole inclusivist position, and that may
>even be a good thing.
No thanks. You seem to be willing to believe in whatever it takes to
support your belief in your god, irregardless of how unbelievable or
irrational it may seem to others, and should seem to you, if you step
back and look at what you are doing.
<snip>
>>So your god is really above all religions? The particular sect or
>>denomination, or even major differences, are really just irrelevant?
>>Are the heaven's gate people in heaven now? Meaningless
>>questions, yes?
>No, actually the question about being above religions is a very good point.
>As a matter of fact I believe that no one religion gives a complete and
>accurate picture of God, and I do believe that on the whole sects,
>denominations and religious divisions are irrelevant. Personal response to
>the Revelation of divine truth is more important than subscription of one
>creed over another.
This seems as though you are attempting to dodge the issue of all
the other beliefs, and how they think they are right, and just taking
a stance that all of them have their good parts. Actually, this
is not a bad position to take, if you cast out all the magical stuff
with regards to them all, and realize that most of them have some
morality or lessons to teach.
>That does not mean I believe all creeds are equally valid. (For instance, I
>reject creeds which call for human sacrifice, or involve sexual perversion,
>or which call for Satan worship.)
What would you think about the headhunting tribes, and cannibals, who
had never heard of your particular god? They are living under their
own societal rules, and think they are only doing right under their
current rules and beliefs. Will these people go to your heaven? How
will your god judge these people?
>In fact, I believe Christianity is the best religion, and the most correct creed.
I suspect you would feel different if you were born in another country
in which christianity were not the main religion.
>I do not however reject all truth claims by all other religions.
Moral truths, stories which teach such, etc? I will not disagree
here, but will simply add that such things can be learned by other
simple stories such as those in Aesops Fables, or other non-religious
stories. As an example, the bible dosen't have much to say about
slavery being wrong, yet man himself has decided that it is wrong,
based on our current morals. Morals are not absolute, they are
changing all the time, within each society, and throughout the world
as time goes on.
>I do believe in conversion, BTW, so I am not, by any means a pluralist!
So you are willing to be converted, or rather de-converted?
--
Elroy
Glen
^
<- snipped ->
^
^ It is impossible to definitively state this person is in heaven,
^ whereas this person is not. Such speculations are unfruitful, and
^ meaningless.
^
^ <Sigh>
^
^ But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from
^ Heaven. He lived a life dedicated to the truths of life, and though I
^ did not know his heart, his example was certainly inspiring. Whether
^ he is in Heaven or not depended on his relationship with the Word of
^ God, in whatever form God chose to reveal himself to Gandhi.
^
^ kestrel_mp
^ o logos n odos
^
^ P.S. I expect flak on this one from both sides!
I don't see why you expect that much flak;
Gandhi was a good man. He probably didn't have a bible available to
come to know Jesus from; and he dedicated his whole life to the love of
mankind and the love of God.
Would God condemn a man whose ears have never heard the Gospel?
Especially when, from his actions it seems that he heard from God, as
his works give witness to a Christ-like life.
As a child with a pure heart who has never heard the Gospel is not cast
unto the second death; how much more so would God love a grown man who
has kept his pure heart without ever hearing the Gospel?
Jesus Himself said that blessed is he who has not seen, and yet still
believes.
I believe that this applies directly to those who have not heard the
Gospel, and yet believe in love; for God is Love.
Now, this does not mean those who ignore the Gospel where it is
prevalent (Such as in America etc), but rather there are places deep in
China where the Word of God has never reached by earthly means. (eg. I
have FULL conviction that that brave man who stood in front of the tank
in Tienenmen Square in China, for the love of his fellow man, is a man
who knows God)
******* *******
Now, it is also true that there is but ONE way to God, and that is
through His Son, Jesus Christ.
This begs the question, however, of what about those who came and died
before Jesus?
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."
So then, how many ways are there to Jesus Christ? "My sheep know My
voice" so when He speaks at the ressurrection, all those who have
followed Him (Even those who followed Him without knowing Him) will
follow Him directly, and then they will know Jesus.
All of mankind has had tribulation in thier lives; and how they handled
thier trials in the eyes of God who allowed them to be tried; will
determine thier ultimate fate.
That brave man in Tienenmen Square handled his trial well. If he is now
dead then I must believe he died a marytr for God.
Selfless devotion to Gods will. Is this not what Jesus Himself did?
Glen.
Kestrel_MP
Glen wrote in message <36154AEF...@ipass.net>...
>
>I don't see why you expect that much flak;
>
>Gandhi was a good man. He probably didn't have a bible available to
>come to know Jesus from; and he dedicated his whole life to the love of
>mankind and the love of God.
>
>Would God condemn a man whose ears have never heard the Gospel?
>Especially when, from his actions it seems that he heard from God, as
>his works give witness to a Christ-like life.
>
>As a child with a pure heart who has never heard the Gospel is not cast
>unto the second death; how much more so would God love a grown man who
>has kept his pure heart without ever hearing the Gospel?
>
>Jesus Himself said that blessed is he who has not seen, and yet still
>believes.
>
>I believe that this applies directly to those who have not heard the
>Gospel, and yet believe in love; for God is Love.
>
>Now, this does not mean those who ignore the Gospel where it is
>prevalent (Such as in America etc), but rather there are places deep in
>China where the Word of God has never reached by earthly means. (eg. I
>have FULL conviction that that brave man who stood in front of the tank
>in Tienenmen Square in China, for the love of his fellow man, is a man
>who knows God)
Yeah, an inclusivist Christian on the web. Just when I thought I was all by
my lonesome amongst rabid fundies, and angry atheists!
Love in Christ,
kestrel_mp
Kevin T Rice
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Elroy Willis wrote:
> "Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>
> >Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>
> >>>But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from
> >>>Heaven.
>
> >>You are speculating on your god's behalf? I thought people can't know
> >>what your god will really do.
If I may break in here, that is not what my brother in Christ and
fellow philosopher (if I read him properly, and I think I do) is doing.
He is simply saying that there is nothing in God's revelation of Himself
and His truth that automatically condemns Gandhi. And that is true.
There is no verse in the Bible that says that those who theologians would
classify as the Invincibly Ignorant will be damned. Paul, under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explained that those who have not heard
the truth or have not been given a fair opportunity to accept it by
some accident of birth (being born in another culture, like India, for
example) will be judged according to the law of their own conscience.
There are those whose conscience will condemn them, and there are those
whose conscience will defend and even excuse them (Romans 2:15).
You are right that we have no warrant to speculate about God
freely and believe our specualtions to be true. But we are permitted to
come to the best understanding we can of God's revelation as handed down
by the Church Christ founded and canonized in the Bible. That's a very
different thing.
> >> You are hoping for the best, and that
> >>good honest people will make it to your heaven, even though they may
> >>not even believe in your particular flavor of religious beliefs?
>
> >I do know what God has said through the Bible,
Well now you do.
> > I know what can be learned
> >through philosophic inquiry.
Bully for you, brother.
>
> And if the two conflict? What then?
If they TRULY conflict, and if the Bible is accepted as the
revealtion of God, philosophy as well as religion tells us that only God
is necessarily right, not us. Religion tells us that our intellects are,
to an extent, fallen, as is the rest of us, and thus cannot be expected to
perfectly apprehend the truth of God that it seeks (otherwise we would not
need the revelation of God in the Bible).
> Do you say to yourself "This
> is illogical, it can't be true",
What would you consider illogical? Some people would answer that
question differently, which is why I ask.
> or do you say "We can't know what god
> really means or intended?"
We can if God has revealed. Or do you doubt that an Infinite God
is capable of revealing Himself?
> Or do you make up some existence which
> is "somewhat real" in nature, which contains some form of logic based
> on an obscure sense of reality?
Not if we have any sense, no. Why should we make up our own
answers when we have the truth given to us by a loving God?
>
> >I know what can be learned by examining the general revelation of science
> >given to all. I do not know the mind of God,
Science is not a revelation! Science is a method to learning true
facts about things in the universe of our experience.
>
> So you are perfectly willing to accept scientific findings and
> theories which may discredit your current beliefs?
Such as?
> What is the point
> at which you are willing to say "This makes sense, logically and
> scientifically", and cast aside the idea of "We can't understand god
> or his reasons?"
Whoah! First you tell us that we can't know God and that you
don't know the mind of God, and now you tell us to toss that out? What
gives?
>
> >but I can make limited guesses based on what He has revealed of Himself.
>
> If you can honestly get past the genesis story, without having to say
> that people just can't understand their god, then you have gone too
> far already.
The Genesis story wasn't troubling to Christian
philosophers and theologians like Augustine of Hippo in the fourth
century, Jerome and Origen in the third, Irenaeus in the second, or
Jewish thinkers in the first and second centuries like Philo and Josephus.
They did not insist that Genesis had to be interpreted literally. They
noted that the sun was created on the fourth day and understood that the
writer must have been speaking poetically. Don't you understand that
people use poetic language to put a point across? They weren't responding
to scientific evidence for an old earth, an old universe, or for
evolution. They were just interpreting the text the way the believe the
inspired writer meant it to be read.
What were you expecting an account of the beginning of the
universe to look like if it were revealed byGod? A scientific paper? A
physicist's thesis? You don't understand people then, let alone ancient
people. Myths and poetry edify people. The creation account wouldn't
have lasted the generations if it didn't edify people the way a story
does, and people like you wouldn't accept it anyway. You'd have just
found another reason to reject it.
Genesis is unique amidst all other creation myths. The Hebrew
people were the chosen people, so their mythology was the chosen
mythology, but theres alone was true in this respect:
Every other culture's creation myth started with matter,
material reality, the matrix, as the eternal ground of being in a
beginningless chaos, and the gods eventually springing forth from the
chaos and bringing order to it. The Hebrew mythology denied that the
world was eternal, but contended that it had a beginning, and that it will
have an ending ("heaven and earth shall pass away"). Only God is
beginningless and eternal, and God made the world.
If Genesis isn't inspired, that's one heck of a coincidence that
they got that right in light of what we know about our 15 billion-year old
expanding universe which will eventually run down through entropy. I
don't suppose YOU can explain that...
> Your god has at one point or another, in the OT and NT,
> exhibited every emotion that man has exhibited. Jealousy, hatred,
> etc, etc.
What were you expecting? An immutable philosopher's God who would
never be moved by His people's prayers? That's not what He said He was.
He revelaed that, in some wonderful way that we can never fully
understand, He loves us. He may be a more than a person, but He is
certainly not less. He is not some amorphous blob who never thinks, never
reacts to His creation. How else was God supposed to communicate this
truth to His people? I already told you, STORIES are what is remembered,
bot metaphysical treatises, philsophy papers, and not physics textbooks,
but stories. And I can prove that. Here are two questions:
1) What were the first words used by God in the creation of the
universe ("the heavens and the earth")?
2) How old is the universe at the distinct moment scientists are
able to measure immediately after the Big Bang?
The answers to the above are: Let there be Light, and 10 to the
minus 43 seconds, the Planck time. Now:
Which one would you have had to look up if I didn't tell you the
answer??
> Do you see why you are able to make guesses on what he
> may do? It's because your god was made up by man, and was given
> all the similar characteristics, yet given an additional few such as
> the omni qualities to make him seem above man.
Now THAT's speculation, and rather shabby speculation at that. If
people were going to make up a God, they wouldn't have made up this one.
They never had before. All the pagan gods are quite different from the
God of the Bible.
>
> >If you would like I can go into the whole inclusivist position, and that may
> >even be a good thing.
Inclusivism is the one philosophy of religion that, by definition,
can't be true. Better to believe in Allah than in the God that everyone
gets to make up stuff contradictory stuff about and have it all be True
because none of it is. John Hick's Inclusivism, while attempting to be
respectful to all religions, actually insults them all, refusing to take
even one of them seriously.
>
> No thanks. You seem to be willing to believe in whatever it takes to
> support your belief in your god, irregardless of how unbelievable or
> irrational it may seem to others, and should seem to you, if you step
> back and look at what you are doing.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>So your god is really above all religions?
The real God would have to be, wouldn't He?
> >> The particular sect or
> >>denomination, or even major differences, are really just irrelevant?
I certainly don't think so.
> >>Are the heaven's gate people in heaven now?
I strongly suspect not.
> >> Meaningless
> >>questions, yes?
If you really believe that they are, why are you asking them?
>
> >No, actually the question about being above religions is a very good point.
> >As a matter of fact I believe that no one religion gives a complete and
> >accurate picture of God
That's a shame. My brother in the Lord seems to be saying that
not even GOD can reveal Himself accurately. I hope I am misinterpreting
him.
> and I do believe that on the whole sects,
> >denominations and religious divisions are irrelevant. Personal response to
> >the Revelation of divine truth is more important than subscription of one
> >creed over another.
Who could argue with that? As far as it goes, it's true, but it
does not go far enough to justify the position that the creeds aren;t
important.
>
> This seems as though you are attempting to dodge the issue of all
> the other beliefs, and how they think they are right, and just taking
> a stance that all of them have their good parts. Actually, this
> is not a bad position to take, if you cast out all the magical stuff
> with regards to them all, and realize that most of them have some
> morality or lessons to teach.
In that regard, they all teach nearly identical tihngs. The only
thing that makes them siginificantly different gives them their dignity
and identity is the very element that you would exclude.
>
> >That does not mean I believe all creeds are equally valid. (For instance, I
> >reject creeds which call for human sacrifice, or involve sexual perversion,
> >or which call for Satan worship.)
>
> What would you think about the headhunting tribes, and cannibals, who
> had never heard of your particular god? They are living under their
> own societal rules, and think they are only doing right under their
> current rules and beliefs. Will these people go to your heaven? How
> will your god judge these people?
>
> >In fact, I believe Christianity is the best religion, and the most correct creed.
It is, in sofar as it is revealed. If it is NOT revealed, it's
just another bit of guesswork, interesting in the way poems and myths are,
but with little else unique to offer.
But it IS the revelation of God.
>
> I suspect you would feel different if you were born in another country
> in which christianity were not the main religion.
>
> >I do not however reject all truth claims by all other religions.
No Christian ought to. Where these other religions agree with the
revaltion of Truth Himself, they are, by definition, right.
Chris Peterson
Oh look, he's found a god buddy.
Actually, if I was xian, I would probably agree with both of you.
It shows you are at least willing to think somewhat logically.
Too bad you can't take it a few steps further, and realize you
are merely chasing your tails.
--
Chris Peterson #1075
yang hu
> Gandhi was a good man. He probably didn't have a bible available to
> come to know Jesus from; and he dedicated his whole life to the love of
> mankind and the love of God.
Christianity. I think there was an account where by someone asked him
who did he wish would act more like Christians and he replied
"Christians".
Yang
#28
yang hu
> That brave man in Tienenmen Square handled his trial well. If he is now
> dead then I must believe he died a marytr for God.
no, in Chinese culture the ideal of self sacrifice is not tied to a
deity the same way as what the xian have in mind. You are merely
projecting your own bias. The students in Tianenman square probably was
as religious as the college students who advocated Marxism at the turn
of the century.
Yang
#28
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> "Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>> >Elroy Willis wrote:
>> >>"Kestrel_MP" <kes...@bellsouth.net<removetag>> wrote:
>> >>>But for the sake of argument, I see no reason to exclude Gandhi from
>> >>>Heaven.
>> >>You are speculating on your god's behalf? I thought people can't know
>> >>what your god will really do.
> If I may break in here, that is not what my brother in Christ and
>fellow philosopher (if I read him properly, and I think I do) is doing.
No problem. Jump right in, if your fellow brother dosen't mind you
speaking for him. That's between you two.
>He is simply saying that there is nothing in God's revelation of Himself
>and His truth that automatically condemns Gandhi. And that is true.
Do tell.
>There is no verse in the Bible that says that those who theologians would
>classify as the Invincibly Ignorant will be damned. Paul, under the
>inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explained that those who have not heard
>the truth or have not been given a fair opportunity to accept it by
>some accident of birth (being born in another culture, like India, for
>example) will be judged according to the law of their own conscience.
This sounds fair, or does it? Anyway, let me ask you a question then.
Suppose you meet a man, spend some time with him, get to know him,
figure he's a nice and honestly good person, etc. But during getting
to know him, you find out he dosen't believe in any gods at all. What
do you do?
Would you start preaching, telling him he is a sinner, and has been
since the day he was born, because your particular religion believes
that idea? Or would you respect his non-belief, and leave it at that,
and let your god decide what to do with him?
Or would you first dangle the carrot, and speak to him of heaven,
and leave the bad parts out until later?
In general, do you think christians examine the character of the
person they may decide to persuade to their belief, or if they see the
person as good, do they just leave them alone? Would leaving them
alone violate the word of god, in that xians are expected to spread
the word of their particular fantasy?
>There are those whose conscience will condemn them, and there are those
>whose conscience will defend and even excuse them (Romans 2:15).
Conscience is a good thing, not divinely given, but sufficient to keep
most people in line, regardless of their religious beliefs.
> You are right that we have no warrant to speculate about God
>freely and believe our specualtions to be true. But we are permitted to
>come to the best understanding we can of God's revelation as handed down
>by the Church Christ founded and canonized in the Bible. That's a very
>different thing.
Whatever. You're jumping through hoops as I see it.
>> >> You are hoping for the best, and that
>> >>good honest people will make it to your heaven, even though they may
>> >>not even believe in your particular flavor of religious beliefs?
>> >I do know what God has said through the Bible,
> Well now you do.
Did you confuse this comment with one made by your brother?
>> > I know what can be learned
>> >through philosophic inquiry.
> Bully for you, brother.
I don't know which brother you are speaking to here, since things seem
to have gotten confused in the quoting.
>> And if the two conflict? What then?
> If they TRULY conflict, and if the Bible is accepted as the
>revealtion of God,
That's the problem here brother. The bible is not the revelation of
some god. It is merely a conglomeration of ancient writings which
includes superstitious and mystical beliefs, along with some useful
parables and fables. It was inspired by "men" and a host of previous
stories and beliefs, not by some god.
>philosophy as well as religion tells us that only God is necessarily right,
>not us.
In a sense, you may be right here, providing you realize god is just
a being made up by man. Your attempts to imagine what your god
would do in situations which are not explicitly spelled out in the
bible requires you to use your own intelligence and reasoning to make
an intelligent decision. Yet you believe your own sense of reason is
flawed by the possible intervention of an evil force such as a devil.
How can you make a rational decision considering these things?
>Religion tells us that our intellects are, to an extent, fallen,
And this is one of the main problems I have with any religion which
states such nonsense. It is completely ridiculous. Why would you
believe such a thing?
>as is the rest of us, and thus cannot be expected to perfectly apprehend
>the truth of God that it seeks (otherwise we would not need the revelation
>of God in the Bible).
Based on your statement above, since your intellect and comprehension
of truth is inept, how can you possibly make a rational decision about
the fate of people who have never heard of your god, or for that
matter, that you are interpreting the bible correctly?
>> Do you say to yourself "This
>> is illogical, it can't be true",
>What would you consider illogical?
A talking snake. A magic tree. Stories of a man dying on a cross to
save man from the wrath of the god they believe in.
>Some people would answer that
>question differently, which is why I ask.
>> or do you say "We can't know what god
>> really means or intended?"
> We can if God has revealed. Or do you doubt that an Infinite God
>is capable of revealing Himself?
I don't believe in any gods, therefore they are incapable of revealing
themselves to me. Simple enough?
>> Or do you make up some existence which
>> is "somewhat real" in nature, which contains some form of logic based
>> on an obscure sense of reality?
> Not if we have any sense, no.
Then you seem to disagree with your brother in Christ, as you called
him. He has some very strange beliefs regarding our sense of reality.
>Why should we make up our own
>answers when we have the truth given to us by a loving God?
But you already said that god didn't give you all the answers, so
you have to make up your own, in many cases. And satan may be
influencing your mind while making those decisions. Oooh, you better
be scared, the boogey man may get you.
>> >I know what can be learned by examining the general revelation of science
>> >given to all. I do not know the mind of God,
> Science is not a revelation! Science is a method to learning true
>facts about things in the universe of our experience.
>> So you are perfectly willing to accept scientific findings and
>> theories which may discredit your current beliefs?
> Such as?
Findings which invalidate the following:
A young earth. Whales being created before land mammals. Birds
being created before land animals, specifically dinosaurs, which
really don't exist in biblical stories, unless you care to believe
that fire breathing dragons were dinosaurs. And a host of other
findings of evolution which rule out some intelligent designer.
>> What is the point
>> at which you are willing to say "This makes sense, logically and
>> scientifically", and cast aside the idea of "We can't understand god
>> or his reasons?"
> Whoah! First you tell us that we can't know God and that you
>don't know the mind of God, and now you tell us to toss that out? What
>gives?
You misread the quotes above. You are confusing my quotes with your
xian brother's quotes again.
>> >but I can make limited guesses based on what He has revealed of Himself.
>> If you can honestly get past the genesis story, without having to say
>> that people just can't understand their god, then you have gone too
>> far already.
> The Genesis story wasn't troubling to Christian
>philosophers and theologians like Augustine of Hippo in the fourth
>century, Jerome and Origen in the third, Irenaeus in the second, or
>Jewish thinkers in the first and second centuries like Philo and Josephus.
>They did not insist that Genesis had to be interpreted literally.
What exactly is the basis for deciding that a particular story is just
a metaphor or myth, or actual fact?
>They noted that the sun was created on the fourth day and understood that the
>writer must have been speaking poetically.
Poetically? How about incorrectly? A mere translation error? It
seems odd that you would consider this so lightly, unless you were
just trying to ignore the facts.
>Don't you understand that people use poetic language to put a point across?
Sure. And I also understand that with each telling of a story, a
little is lost and a little is added or embellished, until such point
that a local flood can become a worldwide flood, and some supernatural
god caused it all.
>They weren't responding to scientific evidence for an old earth, an old universe, or for
>evolution. They were just interpreting the text the way the believe the
>inspired writer meant it to be read.
Is the above supposed to be supportive of your position?
> What were you expecting an account of the beginning of the
>universe to look like if it were revealed by God?
Good question.
>A scientific paper? A physicist's thesis?
Maybe if god just would have taken care to tell things in the right
order, and made sure it was written down properly might be a good
idea. And if he had not confused man's languages in Babel, maybe
we could all know what is the real truth.
>You don't understand people then,
Quite to the contrary I'm afraid.
>let alone ancient people. Myths and poetry edify people.
So you are saying any stories in the bible are likely to be poetry or
myths? Who's to decide which is which?
>The creation account wouldn't have lasted the generations if it didn't
>edify people the way a story does, and people like you wouldn't accept it
>anyway.
It dosen't make sense, that's why I don't accept it.
>You'd have just found another reason to reject it.
Repeat, it dosen't make sense, that's why I don't accept it.
> Genesis is unique amidst all other creation myths.
So you admit it's just a myth?
>The Hebrew people were the chosen people,
So says the story.
>so their mythology was the chosen mythology,
Because they needed a unique god to help them out, right?
One which they could claim as their very own. How original.
Funny how they borrowed aspects of previous gods, and merely
added a few new aspects to him.
>but theres alone was true in this respect:
> Every other culture's creation myth started with matter,
>material reality, the matrix, as the eternal ground of being in a
>beginningless chaos, and the gods eventually springing forth from the
>chaos and bringing order to it. The Hebrew mythology denied that the
>world was eternal, but contended that it had a beginning, and that it will
>have an ending ("heaven and earth shall pass away"). Only God is
>beginningless and eternal, and God made the world.
Slice it any way you like. One god is no more believable than
another, if you step back and see the whole picture. What is
the best god you can come up with? Omni everything, yes?
> If Genesis isn't inspired, that's one heck of a coincidence that
>they got that right in light of what we know about our 15 billion-year old
>expanding universe which will eventually run down through entropy. I
>don't suppose YOU can explain that...
If you're trying to use genesis to back up your belief in god, then
you might want to think about it again.
>> Your god has at one point or another, in the OT and NT,
>> exhibited every emotion that man has exhibited. Jealousy, hatred,
>> etc, etc.
> What were you expecting?
A perfect god with no emotions. Pure logic as it were.
> An immutable philosopher's God who would never be moved by His people's prayers?
An omniscient god could not possibly be moved by anything due to
emotions, since he already would know what the future holds.
> That's not what He said He was.
You mean that's not what the writers said he was?
>He revelaed that, in some wonderful way that we can never fully
>understand,
Oh the bitter irony of the above statement is simply precious.
>He loves us.
How can an omni god love anything, or for that matter, require
or desire love from his own creations, if he can see into the future
and see whether such a thing is even possible?
>He may be a more than a person, but He is certainly not less.
Care to be a little more specific?
>He is not some amorphous blob who never thinks, never
>reacts to His creation.
But he is invisible, yes? Yoohoo, god, god, comeout, comeout
wherever you are.
>How else was God supposed to communicate this
>truth to His people?
He couldn't possibly do so, since he dosen't exist.
>I already told you, STORIES are what is remembered,
And certain stories deserve to be thrown out with the trash,
such as your stories of your god. They are nothing more than
myths and fantasies.
<snip>
--
Elroy
Alvin
people that dont hear the gospel is in Rom1 ,read it ,but you will have to
become a child of God to fully undestand ,the bible Gods word alvin
>^
><- snipped ->
>^
>^ It is impossible to definitively state this person is in heaven,
>^ whereas this person is not. Such speculations are unfruitful, and
>^ meaningless.
>^
>^ <Sigh>
>^
>^ Heaven. He lived a life dedicated to the truths of life, and though I
>^ did not know his heart, his example was certainly inspiring. Whether
>^ he is in Heaven or not depended on his relationship with the Word of
>^ God, in whatever form God chose to reveal himself to Gandhi.
>^
>^ kestrel_mp
>^ o logos n odos
>^
>^ P.S. I expect flak on this one from both sides!
>
>
>come to know Jesus from; and he dedicated his whole life to the love of
>mankind and the love of God.
>
>Especially when, from his actions it seems that he heard from God, as
>his works give witness to a Christ-like life.
>
>As a child with a pure heart who has never heard the Gospel is not cast
>unto the second death; how much more so would God love a grown man who
>has kept his pure heart without ever hearing the Gospel?
>
>Jesus Himself said that blessed is he who has not seen, and yet still
>believes.
>
>I believe that this applies directly to those who have not heard the
>Gospel, and yet believe in love; for God is Love.
>
>Now, this does not mean those who ignore the Gospel where it is
>prevalent (Such as in America etc), but rather there are places deep in
>China where the Word of God has never reached by earthly means. (eg. I
>have FULL conviction that that brave man who stood in front of the tank
>in Tienenmen Square in China, for the love of his fellow man, is a man
>who knows God)
>
>
>Now, it is also true that there is but ONE way to God, and that is
>through His Son, Jesus Christ.
>
>This begs the question, however, of what about those who came and died
>before Jesus?
>
>"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."
>
>So then, how many ways are there to Jesus Christ? "My sheep know My
>voice" so when He speaks at the ressurrection, all those who have
>followed Him (Even those who followed Him without knowing Him) will
>follow Him directly, and then they will know Jesus.
>
>All of mankind has had tribulation in thier lives; and how they handled
>thier trials in the eyes of God who allowed them to be tried; will
>determine thier ultimate fate.
>
>dead then I must believe he died a marytr for God.
>
Chris Peterson
> The bible gives you the answer to all your questions ,what God will do to
> people that dont hear the gospel is in Rom1 ,read it ,but you will have to
> become a child of God to fully undestand ,the bible Gods word alvin
You can't fully understand the bible unless you are a child of god, but
in order to become a child of god you have to read the bible, which
you can't understand unless you're a child of god. Where have we heard
this before? Wonderful logic there Alvin. A bit circular isn't it?
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Christopher A. Lee
Alvin and his clones don't understand that their
"arguments" apply equally to all the other religions
too.
Like he has to become a Moslem child of Allah to understand
the Koran.
Would he be convinced by a Moslem insisting that Islam was
right and Chrisianity wrong, based on a child of Allah's
undertstanding of the Koran - as proof?
Chris Peterson
Would he even be willing to entertain the idea? What say ye
Alvin?
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Frank Wustner
> The bible gives you the answer to all your questions
(megasnip)
No it doesn't. For example:
Where did God come from?
Why is God described as good when he's so damn evil?
Why are so many of those people who worship him so dumb?
etc.
I have *dozens* of questions that the Bible doesn't answer.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |"Ack. Thpppbt." Bill the Cat |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |-----------------------------------|
|Lord Soth | Atheist #119 |
|-----------------------------------| BAAWA! |
|"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'"|-----------------------------------|
|Edgar Allan Bart | niteshade(at)mindspring(dot)com |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
Kestrel_MP
Kevin T Rice wrote in message ...
>> >If you would like I can go into the whole inclusivist position, and that
may
>> >even be a good thing.
>
> Inclusivism is the one philosophy of religion that, by definition,
>can't be true. Better to believe in Allah than in the God that everyone
>gets to make up stuff contradictory stuff about and have it all be True
>because none of it is. John Hick's Inclusivism, while attempting to be
>respectful to all religions, actually insults them all, refusing to take
>even one of them seriously.
>
Had to agree with you up until this point when you misconstrue what I said
in the earlier post. I am an inclusivist not a pluralist (as is Hick).
Inclusivism teaches that Christianity is THE religion and that Christ is THE
only way to Heaven, but they allow for varying ways to reach Christ.
Pre-Christians and those who remain ignorant are judged by "the light which
to them was revealed" whether that be natural law, general revelation, or
the "eternity in their hearts" that longs for the truth of God. Inclusivist
do not accept all religions as equally valid, nor as equally salvatory, as
pluralism does. The best modern proponent of Inclusivism is probably Clark
Pinnock, prior Inclusivists would include C.S. Lewis, Dale Moody, Justin
Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, plus a good number of others both
contemporary and classic. Pluralism IS NOT inclusivism.
>> >No, actually the question about being above religions is a very good
point.
>> >As a matter of fact I believe that no one religion gives a complete and
>> >accurate picture of God
>
> That's a shame. My brother in the Lord seems to be saying that
>not even GOD can reveal Himself accurately. I hope I am misinterpreting
>him.
>
No, God is quite capable of revealing Himself. What I take issue with is
man's ability to understand God's revelation! Christianity has obvious
points of contention, leading to denominationalism, that indicates a lack in
human reason, not a lack in God's revelation.
Hope that clarified a little,
Love in Christ,
kestrel_mp
Kestrel_MP
Alvin wrote in message <36163...@news.ghgcorp.com>...
>The bible gives you the answer to all your questions ,what God will do to
>people that dont hear the gospel is in Rom1 ,read it ,but you will have to
>become a child of God to fully undestand ,the bible Gods word alvin
I can hear the atheists gnashing their teeth at that one.
Please good sirs, allow me this one,
So I can know all the answers if I just read the Bible, but to understand
the Bible I must become a Child of God. How does one come to be a child of
God? By knowing truth, which is contained in the Bible. Which I will only
have access to when I become a child of God, which I cannot become because I
cannot understand the truth...wait a second.
You're pulling a fast one here, and I for one am not about to stand and
watch the atheists laugh about illogical Christians.
Either I can understand, or else I cannot, and if I cannot then you have no
right to use unintelligible evidence against me.
What was your point anyway? I've heard several different exegeses of Romans.
kestrel_mp
Frank A.S.
>
>No it doesn't.
There is the answer to your problem. As an atheist, you are a habitual
nay-sayer, a negatively oriented personality (nagger) who looks at everything
for the purpose of finding apparent weak spots, faults, inconsistencies of
which there are many in any ancient piece of literary art, and easy enough to
find.
The aim of a positive person is to find the nuggets of wisdom and great
revelation in all the mythology. Where do YOU look for wisdom?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Everyone who LOVES is saved (1 John 4:7-8)
LOVE is the only true "religion" according to Jesus.
Jesus doesn't care about your religious affiliation, only your HEART.
No one can come to God except through LOVE (the Spirit of Jesus).
Jesus preached LOVE, not a new religion.
LOVE is what Christ and Christianity is all about!
Christianity is the Way of LOVE for others and God.
Jesus shows us the Way to heaven -----> LOVE.
LOVE is the only thing that matters (Gal 5:6).
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
Elroy Willis
>Alvin wrote in message <36163...@news.ghgcorp.com>...
>>The bible gives you the answer to all your questions ,what God will do to
>>people that dont hear the gospel is in Rom1 ,read it ,but you will have to
>>become a child of God to fully undestand ,the bible Gods word alvin
>I can hear the atheists gnashing their teeth at that one.
It is a bit of circular logic or reasoning, don't you think?
>Please good sirs, allow me this one,
Sure. If you think you can explain it better, go right ahead.
>So I can know all the answers if I just read the Bible, but to understand
>the Bible I must become a Child of God. How does one come to be a child of
>God? By knowing truth, which is contained in the Bible. Which I will only
>have access to when I become a child of God, which I cannot become because I
>cannot understand the truth...wait a second.
Hey, lookie lookie, you see the circular logic yourself, don't you?
>You're pulling a fast one here,
It's not pulling a fast one, it's called realizing the truth of the
matter.
>and I for one am not about to stand and watch the atheists laugh about
>illogical Christians.
How can you defend circular logic?
>Either I can understand, or else I cannot,
Well this is all inclusive, wouldn't you say? What exactly did you
mean to say here anyway?
>and if I cannot then you have no right to use unintelligible evidence against me.
If you cannot understand, then you have a problem.
>What was your point anyway?
That you're hiding behind your god, and have thrown out all logic and
rationality in order to preserve your fantasy.
--
Elroy
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <36283abd....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>>What was your point anyway?
>
>That you're hiding behind your god, and have thrown out all logic and
>rationality in order to preserve your fantasy.
>
>--
>Elroy
People like that guy give all theists a bad name.
However, stereotyping gives the atheists around here a bad name, too.
I don't immediately assume that because you are an atheist that you are a
blind, sick, moron.
Please don't associate my arguments with a post like the above and I promise
never to compare you to maff.
kestrel_mp
maff91
You are an ignorant lying moron. It's self evident.
>
>
>kestrel_mp
>
*****************************************************
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
Kestrel_MP
maff91 wrote in message <36532962...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>You are an ignorant lying moron. It's self evident.
>
What did I lie about this time?
I thought you'd appreciate my anti-circular argument post above!
kestrel_mp
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <36283abd....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>>>What was your point anyway?
>>That you're hiding behind your god, and have thrown out all logic and
>>rationality in order to preserve your fantasy.
>People like that guy give all theists a bad name.
Where does the bad name attribute start, at least with regards to one
theist's views of another theist's views? Does it start at the point
where one theist dosen't believe in a talking snake, and the other one
does? Or maybe that jesus was crucified on friday instead of saturday
or thursday? Or does it go beyond all the stories in the bible, and
boil down to common sense?
>However, stereotyping gives the atheists around here a bad name, too.
It's so easy to stereotype theists though. This one believes in a
savior who died on a stick, and another one believes they will be
reincarnated as a fly. Another one believes we are living in a
partial reality between heaven and who knows where.
Hocus pocus, poof poof, it's magic. That's all I need. Magic to
explain the things I don't understand. Quite logical don't you think?
>I don't immediately assume that because you are an atheist that you are a
>blind, sick, moron.
That's because you don't see atheists believing in talking snakes and
magic trees and fire breathing dragons and wondering if the hand in
front of their face is indeed reality or some obscure sense of
reality.
--
Elroy
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> The aim of a positive person is to find the nuggets of wisdom and great
>revelation in all the mythology.
Those nuggets are few and far between.
The revelations are for the most part non-existant.
>Where do YOU look for wisdom?
Buddha had some wisdom, and Lao Tse too. The Pharisees whose teachings
Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef preached had some wisdom amongst the silly
laws. Jesus? He was a child of Paul of Tarsus imaginings, the hero of
a fraudulent religion. No wisdom or revelation there.
## The NT is less a Christiad than a Pauliad.
Frank A.S.
>On Sun, 4 Oct 1998 16:23:18 -0400, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> The aim of a positive person is to find the nuggets of wisdom and great
>>revelation in all the mythology.
>
>Those nuggets are few and far between.
>The revelations are for the most part non-existant.
>
the Bible, you can
safely consider yourself handicapped in your ability to comprehend and
interpret. It's similar to
being dislexic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence, actually your
handicap is similar to
being tone-deaf or colour blind. And just like the person who sings loudly
off-key in you choir, is
unaware of it and insulted when told, so most atheists react similarly to
being told of their being
comprehensionally challenged.
On the other hand you could be just a habitual nagger, who cannot find
anything good to say
about anybody or anything, a chronic negative personality, a Xantippe.
Personally I have daily "revelations"; often what I thought was mere
mythology turning out to
contain a multi-layered philosophical meanings. Perhaps it's similar to
Bible-codes, where one reads
meaning into something which on first reading has none. I don't know what the
exact mechanism is,
but good will and keen interest seem to be essential, both of which you
display by publishing in religious / spiritual NGs.
>>Where do YOU look for wisdom?
>
>Buddha had some wisdom, and Lao Tse too.
Both of these are much more direct. No mythology, except what was later
added later by
transcribers and which is omitted by translators. If you can understand these,
there is hope for you
yet. Most people in your position are in a reactive phase against having been
subjected to religious
brainwashing in their childhood. Once you immerse yourself in Buddhism for a
while you will
recognise the parallels to Christ and the Bible. Meister Eckhart, a famed
mideaval Christian mystic
was my bridge between Buddhism and Christianity, though I must admit, I was an
atheistic secular
humanist most of my adult life.
The Pharisees whose teachings
>Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef preached had some wisdom amongst the silly
>laws. Jesus? He was a child of Paul of Tarsus imaginings, the hero of
>a fraudulent religion. No wisdom or revelation there.
>
You see, here again, it makes no difference whether Christ ever existed.
The philosophy, the
wisdom of the NT would be still the same, just as Shakespeare's plays are
unaffected by our doubt
about their authorship. If Paul of Tarsus invented the whole NT, he indeed was
a brilliant man and
philosopher and great literary artist. He would be the most translated,
published, sold and read
philosopher / author of all times by a wide margin.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
The author of the Iliad is either Homer or,
if not Homer, somebody else of the same name.
- Aldous Huxley
Kestrel_MP
Elroy Willis wrote in message <362d5db1....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>"Kestrel_MP" <kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>Where does the bad name attribute start, at least with regards to one
>theist's views of another theist's views? Does it start at the point
>where one theist dosen't believe in a talking snake, and the other one
>does? Or maybe that jesus was crucified on friday instead of saturday
>or thursday? Or does it go beyond all the stories in the bible, and
>boil down to common sense?
No, its when theists make arguments based on unsound logic. We can be a
harsh internal critics. The hope is that the illogical will learn enough
logic to hold their own in a debate. The above poster failed to do so.
Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
kestrel_mp
yang hu
> Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
yep
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>> The aim of a positive person is to find the nuggets of wisdom and great
>>>revelation in all the mythology.
>>
>>Those nuggets are few and far between.
>>The revelations are for the most part non-existant.
>>
> Considering the number of persons who do find a great deal of wisdom in
>the Bible,
Or delude themselves that they have.
>you can safely consider yourself handicapped in your ability to comprehend and
>interpret.
I would meekly do so if those persons you mention exhibited any real
wisdom, but they don't. All they have to show for their perusal of the
Bible is the sort of antagonism and intolerance you see endlessly
repeated in these religious forums.
> It's similar to being dislexic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence,
> actually your handicap is similar to being tone-deaf or colour blind.
A reasonable argument only if you can demonstrate its truth, but you
can't. A color blind person can take the same color swatch to a dozen
people and get the same answer each time. A C-sharp is a C-sharp to
evey musician in town. If I take the same Bible passage to a dozen
bibliolaters, I get a dozen differing interpretations. An no apparent
wisdom, just prejudice.
> Personally I have daily "revelations"; often what I thought was mere
>mythology turning out to contain a multi-layered philosophical meanings.
Or multi layered figments of your imagination.
>Perhaps it's similar to Bible-codes, where one reads
>meaning into something which on first reading has none.
I'll buy that. The Bible codes work on the principle that any meaning
can be extracted if you play with the permutations long enough.
>>>Where do YOU look for wisdom?
>>
>>Buddha had some wisdom, and Lao Tse too.
>
> Both of these are much more direct. No mythology, except what was later
>added later by transcribers and which is omitted by translators. If you can understand these,
>there is hope for you yet. Most people in your position are in a reactive phase against having been
>subjected to religious brainwashing in their childhood.
Um, no, not really. My daddy tried to raise me a good Episcopalian,
but it didn't take. He seemed to expect me to absorb my faith by some
sort of osmosis from my social surroundings, not realizing that I
wasn't growing up in the unquestioning "God, King and Country" world
he grew up in. These are iconoclastic times.
Also and my mother was a closet agnostic who used to keep copies of
Ingersoll's little pamphlets out of daddy's sight. The twig got bent
the wrong way :-)
>Once you immerse yourself in Buddhism for a while you will
>recognise the parallels to Christ and the Bible. Meister Eckhart, a famed
>mideaval Christian mystic was my bridge between Buddhism and Christianity,
> though I must admit, I was an atheistic secular humanist most of my adult life.
Buddhists are atheists, but they are also ardent mystics, which I am
not. I am a materialist (in the philosophical sense). In other words
the opposite of a mystic.
>The Pharisees whose teachings
>>Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef preached had some wisdom amongst the silly
>>laws. Jesus? He was a child of Paul of Tarsus imaginings, the hero of
>>a fraudulent religion. No wisdom or revelation there.
>>
> You see, here again, it makes no difference whether Christ ever existed.
>The philosophy, the wisdom of the NT would be still the same,
But you would winnow the NT for its wisdom. Can't you understand, the
devout don't do that. They buy the whole fraud, every word of it,
literally. It's inerrant they say, and to be read unquestioningly. If
what it says conflicts with reality, they insist you must just be
reading it wrong.
> If Paul of Tarsus invented the whole NT
No, he didn't. He invented Jesus, basing his hero on a deceased Judean
freedom-fighter. It was Paul's heirs and assigns who constructed the
myth, bit by bit, as the decades passed.
## FANATIC: won't change his mind, & won't change the subject
Frank A.S.
>On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 08:45:33 -0400, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Considering the number of persons who do find a great deal of wisdom in
>>the Bible,
>
>Or delude themselves that they have.
>
judgment, that they "delude" themselves and you are not?
>>you can safely consider yourself handicapped in your ability to comprehend and
>>interpret.
>
>I would meekly do so if those persons you mention exhibited any real
>wisdom, but they don't.
Again, who are you to make that negative judgment about them? Are you the Pope infallibly
infallible?
All they have to show for their perusal of the
>Bible is the sort of antagonism and intolerance you see endlessly
>repeated in these religious forums.
>
What are those? I don't see them, and I read religious / philosophical NGs exclusively. Again,
you judge negatively.
>> It's similar to being dyslexic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence,
>> actually your handicap is similar to being tone-deaf or colour blind.
>
>A reasonable argument only if you can demonstrate its truth, but you
>can't.
I don't need to demonstrate, for you have already done so by your inability to interpret
positively Biblical symbolism and metaphor. If that is not so, then please show me a positive
Biblical interpretation you have made.
A color blind person can take the same color swatch to a dozen
>people and get the same answer each time. A C-sharp is a C-sharp to
>every musician in town. If I take the same Bible passage to a dozen
>bibliolaters, I get a dozen differing interpretations. An no apparent
>wisdom, just prejudice.
>
Exactly! They can interpret, but he himself cannot. That different interpretations are proof of
"prejudice" is again a negative judgment for which you lack proof.
>> Personally I have daily "revelations"; often what I thought was mere
>>mythology turning out to contain a multi-layered philosophical meanings.
>
>Or multi layered figments of your imagination.
>
Another negative judgment. Did I not say that the Bible speaks only to those WITH imagination?
>>Perhaps it's similar to Bible-codes, where one reads
>>meaning into something which on first reading has none.
>
>I'll buy that. The Bible codes work on the principle that any meaning
>can be extracted if you play with the permutations long enough.
>
At long last a positive judgment. Perhaps there is hope for a cure of your chronic cynicism?
>
>>Once you immerse yourself in Buddhism for a while you will
>>recognize the parallels to Christ and the Bible. Meister Eckhart, a famed
>>medieval Christian mystic was my bridge between Buddhism and Christianity,
>> though I must admit, I was an atheistic secular humanist most of my adult life.
>
>Buddhists are atheists, but they are also ardent mystics, which I am
>not. I am a materialist (in the philosophical sense). In other words
>the opposite of a mystic.
>
You prove my point that you cannot understand highly abstract symbolism and metaphor. It's like
the music of J.S. Bach being to one the music of heaven, and to the other a lot of noise. It's a
handicap.
>>>Jesus? He was a child of Paul of Tarsus imaginings, the hero of
>>>a fraudulent religion. No wisdom or revelation there.
>>>
Another pile of negative, cynical and unproved judgments.
>> You see, here again, it makes no difference whether Christ ever existed.
>>The philosophy, the wisdom of the NT would be still the same,
>
>But you would winnow the NT for its wisdom. Can't you understand, the
>devout don't do that. They buy the whole fraud, every word of it,
>literally.
Another sweeping negative judgment against the all of the 'devout'.
It's inerant they say, and to be read unquestioningly.
All art is inerant. Are you qualified to correct any artist's creation? The Bible is an example
of ancient literary art and thus wholly true. Like any art it's up to you to interpret it so it
makes sense to you. Just to stand there looking at a piece of art and say: "This is all shit",
doesn't make it so, nor speak well of your interpretive skills.
>If what it says conflicts with reality, they insist you must just be
>reading it wrong.
>
ALL art "conflicts with reality". If it weren't so you wouldn't need to interpret it, it would
all be just cut and dry, like a scientific textbook or cook book. But that's not the way philosophy
is.
>> If Paul of Tarsus invented the whole NT
>
>No, he didn't. He invented Jesus, basing his hero on a deceased Judean
>freedom-fighter. It was Paul's heirs and assigns who constructed the
>myth, bit by bit, as the decades passed.
>
I guess it's a belief like any other, not much proof though, and really immaterial to the art as
such. It wouldn't change a thing about its philosophical content.
>
Now all you need to do is count the number of negative and positive judgments to see if you are
in fact a habitual negative thinker, a nagger who cannot see anything good in anyone nor anything
laudable in anything.
You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people die
young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers. I know where you are coming from; in
addition to negative thinking I used to suffer from both secret panic attacks as well as attacks of
overwhelming anger. That's all gone now, and not by reason of becoming a 'literal unquestioning
believer" either.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
LOVE is empowering and all-powerful.
LOVE, being of God, is of the spirit and too profound to be fully
understood in this physical world, it is NOT "of the flesh".
LOVE is patient, kind, doesn't envy, doesn't boast, is not proud
LOVE is not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered
LOVE does not delight in evil, rejoices with the truth, always protects and cares
LOVE always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres, never fails (1Cor 13:7-8)
God is LOVE (1 John 4:8)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>> Considering the number of persons who do find a great deal of wisdom in
>>>the Bible,
>>
>>Or delude themselves that they have.
>>
> I can't read other people's minds, can you? What are your qualifications for making the negative
>judgment, that they "delude" themselves and you are not?
Their demonstrated lack of wisdom. They believe liars like Gish and
Morris and TV con-men like Baker and Swaggart. Or do you think that
people can find wisdom and then act like fools anyway?
>>>you can safely consider yourself handicapped in your ability to comprehend and
>>>interpret.
>>
>>I would meekly do so if those persons you mention exhibited any real
>>wisdom, but they don't.
>
> Again, who are you to make that negative judgment about them?
>Are you the Pope infallibly infallible?
You don't have to be infallible to know the world is older than 6000
years. That there wasn't any global deluge and that most of the
Biblical mythology you so value is fiction.
>All they have to show for their perusal of the
>>Bible is the sort of antagonism and intolerance you see endlessly
>>repeated in these religious forums.
>>
> What are those? I don't see them,
See them! You're part of them!
I quote from one of your latest posts in alt.religion.apologetics-
>>When has Franky ever done anything *but* launch into vitriolic attacks
>>against people who disagree with him?
> That's your style Austin, to poison Religious / spiritual NGs with your hateful atheistic
>polemics, you prove yourself to be an agent of Satan, sent from hell to vilify and refute Christians
>in their own NGs, and try to transform their NGs into your hell.
>>> It's similar to being dyslexic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence,
>>> actually your handicap is similar to being tone-deaf or colour blind.
>>
>>A reasonable argument only if you can demonstrate its truth, but you
>>can't.
>
> I don't need to demonstrate, for you have already done so by your inability to interpret
>positively Biblical symbolism and metaphor. If that is not so, then please show me a positive
>Biblical interpretation you have made.
Positive interpretations to suit YOU demonstrate my perspicuity? No.
First you must demonstrate that this insight exists in others. That
they all agree on what they find in the same manner that everyone who
is not color blind agrees what is red and what isn't. You Bible
perceivers don't belong to a majority like that. You're all members of
fragmented, dissenting factions.
>A color blind person can take the same color swatch to a dozen
>>people and get the same answer each time. A C-sharp is a C-sharp to
>>every musician in town. If I take the same Bible passage to a dozen
>>bibliolaters, I get a dozen differing interpretations. An no apparent
>>wisdom, just prejudice.
>>
> Exactly! They can interpret, but he himself cannot. That different interpretations are proof of
>"prejudice" is again a negative judgment for which you lack proof.
You're railling against a demonstrated truth. Different
'interpretations' are proof of lack of true perception. Truth lies in
only one direction.
>>>Perhaps it's similar to Bible-codes, where one reads
>>>meaning into something which on first reading has none.
>>
>>I'll buy that. The Bible codes work on the principle that any meaning
>>can be extracted if you play with the permutations long enough.
>>
> At long last a positive judgment. Perhaps there is hope for a cure of your chronic cynicism?
Read again. That WAS cynicism. I'll spell it out:
If you engage in mathematical masturbation, playing with the numbers
to make yourself feel good, you can make the Bible seem to spell out
anything you want. If I was in favor of eating little babies with
marmalade for breakfast, and fiddled with those stupid codes long
enough, I could get myself confirmation therefrom.
>>Buddhists are atheists, but they are also ardent mystics, which I am
>>not. I am a materialist (in the philosophical sense). In other words
>>the opposite of a mystic.
>>
> You prove my point that you cannot understand highly abstract symbolism and metaphor. It's like
>the music of J.S. Bach being to one the music of heaven, and to the other a lot of noise. It's a
>handicap.
Which you alone don't have apparently.
>>But you would winnow the NT for its wisdom. Can't you understand, the
>>devout don't do that. They buy the whole fraud, every word of it,
>>literally.
>
> Another sweeping negative judgment against the all of the 'devout'.
Millions of them Frank. Many of whom dispute you in these very forums.
Don't kid yourself that your liberal "everybody perceives their own
truth" system is accepted by any large number of believers.
>It's inerant they say, and to be read unquestioningly.
>
> All art is inerant.
Yeah. But our interpretations thereof differ.
Is that a consistent argument?
>Are you qualified to correct any artist's creation?
I'm qualified to observe illogic. You can't marry up inerrancy and
differing interpretations. If something is inerrant, then there's only
ONE correct exegesis.
>The Bible is an example of ancient literary art and thus wholly true.
>Like any art it's up to you to interpret it so it makes sense to you.
That's metaphysical nonsense.
>>If what it says conflicts with reality, they insist you must just be
>>reading it wrong.
>>
> ALL art "conflicts with reality".
Then it isn't true. Truth IS reality.
>>> If Paul of Tarsus invented the whole NT
>>
>>No, he didn't. He invented Jesus, basing his hero on a deceased Judean
>>freedom-fighter. It was Paul's heirs and assigns who constructed the
>>myth, bit by bit, as the decades passed.
>>
> I guess it's a belief like any other, not much proof though,
Lots of proof.
> Now all you need to do is count the number of negative and positive judgments to see if you are
>in fact a habitual negative thinker,
Most of my negative thoughts are with regard to religion. I have no
trouble thinking positive thoughts with reference to sensible belief
systems like science.
> You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people die
>young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers.
Sheepdip. One of Christianity's biggest critics was Bertie Russell and
he lived to be 98.
## A historian's first duties are sacrilege and the mocking of false
gods.
Brian F. King
No we don't.
--
Brian F. King: Alt.Atheist #477
Organic Machinery
>yang hu wrote:
>
>> Kestrel_MP
>>
>> > Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
>>
>>
>> yep
>
>No we don't.
Shut the hell up, traitor.
<insert obvious sideways facial expression here>
--Organic Machinery (O.M.)
a.a. atheist #284
Head of EAC Research and Development,
and Asst. Pet Lion Feeder
"been around the world and found
that only stupid people are breeding
the cretins cloning and feeding..."
-Harvey Danger
--------------------------------------------------------
Remove the obvious, and the Z's, to contact me via email
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank A.S.
>On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:24:03 -0400, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Considering the number of persons who do find a great deal of wisdom in
>>>>the Bible,
>>>
>>>Or delude themselves that they have.
>>>
>> I can't read other people's minds, can you? What are your qualifications for making the
negative
>>judgment, that they "delude" themselves and you are not?
>
>Their demonstrated lack of wisdom. They believe liars like Gish and
>Morris and TV con-men like Baker and Swaggart. Or do you think that
>people can find wisdom and then act like fools anyway?
>
inability to keep their pants up, as so many powerful and popular men of our acquaintance. No,
"there is no one perfect, no not one".
But like I said, you have the handicap of not being able to discern anything good about anyone.
If keep looking for dirt you will find dirt, but what good will it do you? All it does is confirm
you opinion that the world is populated by deluded fools and crooks.
>See them! You're part of them!
>I quote from one of your latest posts in alt.religion.apologetics-
>
>>>When has Franky ever done anything *but* launch into vitriolic attacks
>>>against people who disagree with him?
>
>> That's your style Austin, to poison Religious / spiritual NGs with your hateful atheistic
>>polemics, you prove yourself to be an agent of Satan, sent from hell to vilify and refute
Christians
>>in their own NGs, and try to transform their NGs into your hell.
>
So? You quoted me but you have not proved me wrong.
>
>You're railing against a demonstrated truth. Different
>'interpretations' are proof of lack of true perception. Truth lies in
>only one direction.
>
Not according to Buddha, "A wheel has many spokes, all leading to the same center". So you are
right "truth does indeed lie in one direction", though not one art critic will echo the
interpretation of any other.
>
>Millions of them Frank. Many of whom dispute you in these very forums.
>Don't kid yourself that your liberal "everybody perceives their own
>truth" system is accepted by any large number of believers.
>
I did not advocate that everyone's truth IS truth. I am saying that you are free to interpret
religious literature in any POSITIVE way you desire.
>>It's inerant they say, and to be read unquestioningly.
>>
>> All art is inerant.
>
>Yeah. But our interpretations thereof differ.
>Is that a consistent argument?
>
The only important difference is whether your interpretation is done lovingly or spitefully. You
seem to specialize in the latter.
>>Are you qualified to correct any artist's creation?
>
>I'm qualified to observe illogic. You can't marry up inerrancy and
>differing interpretations. If something is inerrant, then there's only
>ONE correct exegesis.
>
Like I said: ALL art is inerrant, but interpretations are not. Neither is YOUR interpretation I
am glad to say.
>>The Bible is an example of ancient literary art and thus wholly true.
>>Like any art it's up to you to interpret it so it makes sense to you.
>
>That's metaphysical nonsense.
>
That's where your problem lies. People like you would send a Picasso back for a refund, because
the nose isn't painted in the right place.
>> ALL art "conflicts with reality".
>
>Then it isn't true. Truth IS reality.
>
No, art is an abstraction of reality and only becomes true to the beholder. Loads of art that
hasn't come true to me yet, but that makes life interesting. Little by little meaning emerges out of
chaos.
>
>> Now all you need to do is count the number of negative and positive judgments to see if you
are
>>in fact a habitual negative thinker,
>
>Most of my negative thoughts are with regard to religion. I have no
>trouble thinking positive thoughts with reference to sensible belief
>systems like science.
>
How can you compare science with art? Science deals with facts. But art, religion, philosophy
etc. deals with imagination. And don't forget, that all scientific facts were first conceived in
someone's imagination, so don't knock it.
>> You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people
die
>>young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers.
>
>Sheepdip. One of Christianity's biggest critics was Bertie Russell and
>he lived to be 98.
>
Does one exception make the rule invalid? Lighten up and enjoy!
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Logic is a system whereby
one may go wrong with confidence.
- Charles Kettering
Wonder rather than doubt is the root of knowledge.
- Abraham Joshua Heschel
Jim Cheesman
wrote:
>Kestrel_MP
>
>> Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
>
>
>yep
No we don't. Idiot.
JimC
Jim Cheesman a.a#1272 ICQ#16101534 mog...@arrakis.es
"Things cannot be other than they are... Everything is made for the best
purpose. Our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles."
- Dr. Pangloss, from "Candide" by Voltaire
yang hu
> >> Kestrel_MP
> >> > Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
> >> yep
> >No we don't.
> Shut the hell up, traitor.
> <insert obvious sideways facial expression here>
bunch of splitters you all :-)
Yang
#28
Landis D. Ragon
OK, who invited the Conspiracy of Evil Atheists in here?
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom
denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>>>> Considering the number of persons who do find a great deal of wisdom in
>>>>>the Bible,
>>>>
>>>>Or delude themselves that they have.
>>>>
>>> I can't read other people's minds, can you? What are your qualifications for making the
>>> negative judgment, that they "delude" themselves and you are not?
>>
>>Their demonstrated lack of wisdom. They believe liars like Gish and
>>Morris and TV con-men like Baker and Swaggart. Or do you think that
>>people can find wisdom and then act like fools anyway?
>>
> I know Bakker and Swaggart to be most gifted speakers, preachers etc, with the unfortunate
>inability to keep their pants up, as so many powerful and popular men of our acquaintance. No,
>"there is no one perfect, no not one".
That's beside the point. The question is, if these men are liars, why
cannot these wise discerners realize that? Why do they believe Gish
and Morris and their published lies?
> But like I said, you have the handicap of not being able to discern anything good about anyone.
Because I do not discern good in those of whom we speak it means I
cannot find it in anyone? Don't be silly! Now think about the issues a
bit. Does truth lie only in the direction of happy harmony and
positive thinking?
>If keep looking for dirt you will find dirt, but what good will it do you? All it does is confirm
>you opinion that the world is populated by deluded fools and crooks.
I don't have to look Frank! The lies of the ICR are published
worldwide, thrust in my face. The fundamentalist right is campaigning
to get their religion taught in the schools in the US.
>>See them! You're part of them!
>>I quote from one of your latest posts in alt.religion.apologetics-
>>
>>>>When has Franky ever done anything *but* launch into vitriolic attacks
>>>>against people who disagree with him?
>>
>>> That's your style Austin, to poison Religious / spiritual NGs with your hateful atheistic
>>>polemics, you prove yourself to be an agent of Satan, sent from hell to vilify and refute
>Christians
>>>in their own NGs, and try to transform their NGs into your hell.
>>
> So? You quoted me but you have not proved me wrong.
Am I debating another John P. Boatwrong here . . . ?
>>You're railing against a demonstrated truth. Different
>>'interpretations' are proof of lack of true perception. Truth lies in
>>only one direction.
>>
> Not according to Buddha,
Yes according to Buddha.
> "A wheel has many spokes, all leading to the same center". So you are
>right "truth does indeed lie in one direction", though not one art critic will echo the
>interpretation of any other.
Then they didn't find the same center.
>>Millions of them Frank. Many of whom dispute you in these very forums.
>>Don't kid yourself that your liberal "everybody perceives their own
>>truth" system is accepted by any large number of believers.
>>
> I did not advocate that everyone's truth IS truth. I am saying that you are free to interpret
>religious literature in any POSITIVE way you desire.
Do only POSITIVE ways lead to truth? NO!
Either the sky is a solid dome or it isn't.
Either the earth is round and flat like a plate or it isn't.
Either God made Trees before fish or he didn't.
Either Jesus died for us or he didn't.
The truth is yes or no, positive or negative. A positive
interpretation of a lie or an error is not a good thing, no matter how
much pseudo-sweetness and apparent benevolence if seems to generate.
Yes you're free to believe a lie, but that's NOT a good thing.
>>>It's inerant they say, and to be read unquestioningly.
>>>
>>> All art is inerant.
>>
>>Yeah. But our interpretations thereof differ.
>>Is that a consistent argument?
>>
> The only important difference is whether your interpretation is done lovingly or spitefully. You
>seem to specialize in the latter.
Now here we have the kernel of your argument it seems to me. A loving
gullibility is better than a spiteful disbelief in your view. Anything
for loving harmony and let the con-men and the liars take in the
suckers by the millions! Any lie is acceptable as long as it's
artfully told!
>>>Are you qualified to correct any artist's creation?
>>
>>I'm qualified to observe illogic. You can't marry up inerrancy and
>>differing interpretations. If something is inerrant, then there's only
>>ONE correct exegesis.
>>
> Like I said: ALL art is inerrant,
No it's not Frank! That's the point! Some of the most accomplished
artists in the history of the world have been expert liars. Josef
Goebbels was an artist par-excellance. He took in an entire notion
over the space of a decade and led them all streight to hell on earth.
>>>The Bible is an example of ancient literary art and thus wholly true.
>>>Like any art it's up to you to interpret it so it makes sense to you.
>>
>>That's metaphysical nonsense.
>>
> That's where your problem lies. People like you would send a
>Picasso back for a refund, because the nose isn't painted in the right place.
While people like you will gull rich idiots into paying millions for
it.
>>> ALL art "conflicts with reality".
>>
>>Then it isn't true. Truth IS reality.
>>
> No, art is an abstraction of reality and only becomes true to the beholder.
Truth isn't relative.
> Loads of art that hasn't come true to me yet, but that makes life interesting.
>Little by little meaning emerges out of chaos.
Or delusion as the case may be. Is your artist a Goebbels?
>>> Now all you need to do is count the number of negative and positive
>>>judgments to see if you are in fact a habitual negative thinker,
>>
>>Most of my negative thoughts are with regard to religion. I have no
>>trouble thinking positive thoughts with reference to sensible belief
>>systems like science.
>>
> How can you compare science with art?
By results. Did we get to the moon or didn't we?
>Science deals with facts.
Exactly. Facts. Truth.
> But art, religion, philosophy etc. deals with imagination.
That's fine. Just take note that what it imagines may or may not be
true.
>And don't forget, that all scientific facts were first conceived in
>someone's imagination, so don't knock it.
I don't knock imagination. It's gullibity and rationalization I decry.
>>> You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people
>>> die young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers.
>>
>>Sheepdip. One of Christianity's biggest critics was Bertie Russell and
>>he lived to be 98.
>>
> Does one exception make the rule invalid?
In science, yes.
>Lighten up and enjoy!
I do enjoy artistic lies under some circumstances. The computer
generated lies called special effects that are taking over the modern
movie for instance are an art form I much enjoy. I dabble in that art
myself in a small way. But I don't mistake it for truth.
>Wonder rather than doubt is the root of knowledge.
>- Abraham Joshua Heschel
## What luck for the rulers that men do not think. ADOLF HITLER
Jim Cheesman
>The bible gives you the answer to all your questions
What's the square root of 403304325972487987? (Chapter and verse,
please. :) And the next winning lottery number?
>,what God will do to
>people that dont hear the gospel is in Rom1 ,read it ,but you will have to
>become a child of God to fully undestand ,the bible Gods word alvin
OK... If I get this straight to become "children of god" we must follow
the teachings of the bible, a book we cannot possibly understand (at
least in its entirity) until becoming "children of god".
Did I get that right?
Oh, and what did your post have to do with the (now snipped) previous
one about Gandhi?
JimC.
Frank A.S.
>> I know Bakker and Swaggart to be most gifted speakers, preachers etc, with the unfortunate
>>inability to keep their pants up, as so many powerful and popular men of our acquaintance. No,
>>"there is no one perfect, no not one".
>
>That's beside the point. The question is, if these men are liars, why
>cannot these wise discerners realize that? Why do they believe Gish
>and Morris and their published lies?
>
The same way most people still believe in Bill Clinton. "As long as he does his job...... etc."
>> But like I said, you have the handicap of not being able to discern anything good about
anyone.
>
>Because I do not discern good in those of whom we speak it means I
>cannot find it in anyone? Don't be silly! Now think about the issues a
>bit. Does truth lie only in the direction of happy harmony and
>positive thinking?
>
So far you only have shown yourself to be critical of those who set up, promote / publish /
disseminate and try to live up to a high moral standard. It should be obvious that where there is "a
high moral standard" there will be a high failure rate. It is typical of atheists generally, that
they want to eliminate the standard and therewith the failure rate. Then everybody is good, and
those that are not can call themselves blameless, because like Charles Manson they consider
themselves a "product of their society" and therefore innocent. If they don't seem to live up the
expectations of society, then society is to blame for not caring, loving and teaching them
sufficiently of what society expects of them. That's the secular humanist view of life: Man is
basically good, if he is not, then society which nurtured him is to blame.
>>If keep looking for dirt you will find dirt, but what good will it do you? All it does is confirm
>>you opinion that the world is populated by deluded fools and crooks.
>
>I don't have to look Frank! The lies of the ICR are published
>worldwide, thrust in my face. The fundamentalist right is campaigning
>to get their religion taught in the schools in the US.
>
You are just confirming what I said. What are lies to you are truths to others. The interesting
fact is that you only can see lies, never great truths. For if you could, you would have started to
proclaim and laud them a long time ago.
>
>Am I debating another John P. Boatwrong here . . . ?
>
Only in the matter of abuse heaped on Christians in their own religious NGs. But then you
yourself are an example of an atheist trolling religious NGs for Christians to refute. I find you an
interesting case study of the typical negative cynical mindset, that can only see ugliness, where
others see great beauty.
>>>You're railing against a demonstrated truth. Different
>>>'interpretations' are proof of lack of true perception. Truth lies in
>>>only one direction.
>>>
>> Not according to Buddha,
>
>Yes according to Buddha.
>
>> "A wheel has many spokes, all leading to the same center". So you are
>>right "truth does indeed lie in one direction", though not one art critic will echo the
>>interpretation of any other.
>
>Then they didn't find the same center.
>
I guess in that case, Buddha's wheel had no spokes either?
>
>Do only POSITIVE ways lead to truth? NO!
Yes! Truth is by definition 'positive'. Lies are negative.
>
>Either the sky is a solid dome or it isn't.
>Either the earth is round and flat like a plate or it isn't.
>Either God made Trees before fish or he didn't.
>Either Jesus died for us or he didn't.
>
All of these are examples of poetic license and symbolisms for the truth. That's the way art is.
Get used to it!
>The truth is yes or no, positive or negative. A positive
>interpretation of a lie or an error is not a good thing, no matter how
>much pseudo-sweetness and apparent benevolence if seems to generate.
>Yes you're free to believe a lie, but that's NOT a good thing.
>
Because I look for the positive, I try to see great truth in any apparent lie and goodness in
the worst of liars. A negative personality turns even the greatest truth into a lie, for that is
what he wants to see. It's the epitome of cynicism and the suicidal mentality.
>>>
>> The only important difference is whether your interpretation is done lovingly or spitefully.
You
>>seem to specialize in the latter.
>
>Now here we have the kernel of your argument it seems to me. A loving
>gullibility is better than a spiteful disbelief in your view. Anything
>for loving harmony and let the con-men and the liars take in the
>suckers by the millions! Any lie is acceptable as long as it's
>artfully told!
>
In some ways that is true. I love to see a good conman do his thing. He is an artist all his
own. But his efforts are usually wasted on me. Getting angry, scolding, nagging etc. will only
damage MY health not HIS. Anyway, a televangilist selling his interpretation of the Bible needs to
be paid by those who listen to him or go hungry. HIS listeners have a choice to pay him or not. On
the other hand my soap merchant adds his advertising costs to my bar of soap, and if I don't want to
go dirty I HAVE to pay for it, I have NO CHOICE.
>
>> Like I said: ALL art is inerrant,
>
>No it's not Frank! That's the point! Some of the most accomplished
>artists in the history of the world have been expert liars. Josef
>Goebbels was an artist par-excellance. He took in an entire notion
>over the space of a decade and led them all straight to hell on earth.
>
Ask any Philippino about why Marcos is still admired "because he was the biggest and most
successful thief in history" will be the reply. Why do you watch 'Jewel thief episodes' admiring the
audacity and charm of the thief? Why are you occupying land stolen from the natives, but feel
qualified to criticize and judge everybody else? Are you God yourself, or live according to God's
word unfailingly?
>
>> That's where your problem lies. People like you would send a
>>Picasso back for a refund, because the nose isn't painted in the right place.
>
>While people like you will gull rich idiots into paying millions for it.
>
Like I said: You don't know how to appreciate art.
>>>
>> No, art is an abstraction of reality and only becomes true to the beholder.
>
>Truth isn't relative.
>
Watch it! You are now leaving atheist' domain. For official atheist position is: There ain't no
absolutes. It's the theists' position that 'truth' is NOT relative, but absolute and is therefore
called God in their documentation.
>> Loads of art that hasn't come true to me yet, but that makes life interesting.
>>Little by little meaning emerges out of chaos.
>
>Or delusion as the case may be. Is your artist a Goebbels?
>
You got to have faith in yourself and trust the Holy (healthy, wholesome) spirit of God to warn
you of fakes. You would automatically have spotted a Goebbels during his hegemony, because to you
everybody is a fake, except perhaps the soap merchant telling you that his soap washes 'whiter than
white'.
>>>
>> How can you compare science with art?
>
>By results. Did we get to the moon or didn't we?
>
You ARE a sap, aren't you. Talk about propagandist Goebbel's lies.That was an unmanned landing
dressed up to look like a manned landing for propaganda purposes, (successfully I might add. For it
spelled the beginning of end for the Soviet Union). Check with Bill Kaysing's WE NEVER WENT TO THE
MOON, AMERICA'S $30 BILLION SWINDLE, Desert Publications, Cornville, Ariz.
>>Science deals with facts.
>
>Exactly. Facts. Truth.
If you are not being conned.
>
>> But art, religion, philosophy etc. deals with imagination.
>
>That's fine. Just take note that what it imagines may or may not be
>true.
>
It largely depends on the interpretation. the negative mind-set will ALWAYS and only distrust
spiritual absolutes, such as love, care, honesty, patients, generosity, helpfulness, trust and a
host of other positive abstracts which religions codify, publish and promote as desirable and hold
up as ideals for believers in the values to live up to.
It reminds me of one Christmas where I handed each kid of the extended family a present. All
thanked me except one. She looked at the present and exclaimed: Only this? That's less than
everybody else got. You hate me don't you! Well, I hate you too. Well, ain't that an example of a
negative mindset or is it? Recognize yourself?
>>And don't forget, that all scientific facts were first conceived in
>>someone's imagination, so don't knock it.
>
>I don't knock imagination. It's gullibility and rationalization I decry.
>
Who is better at rationalizing licentiousness and profligacy than atheists? What well known,
published code of ethics do they have to live up to? Julius Huxley said, when asked why some people
where so against the concept of a God: I presume, the notion of a God interferes with their sexual
mores. And I for one concur with him.
>>>> You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people
>>>> die young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers.
>>>
>>>Sheepdip. One of Christianity's biggest critics was Bertie Russell and
>>>he lived to be 98.
>>>
>> Does one exception make the rule invalid?
>
>In science, yes.
>
Do check up on the moon landing and other frauds.
>>Lighten up and enjoy!
>
>I do enjoy artistic lies under some circumstances. The computer
>generated lies called special effects that are taking over the modern
>movie for instance are an art form I much enjoy. I dabble in that art
>myself in a small way. But I don't mistake it for truth.
>
>>Wonder rather than doubt is the root of knowledge.
>>- Abraham Joshua Heschel
>
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
You've no idea of what a poor opinion I have of myself,
and how little I deserve it.
- W. S. Gilbert
Elroy Willis
>No, God is quite capable of revealing Himself.
So where is he? Hiding behind the next comet?
>What I take issue with is man's ability to understand God's revelation!
Why do you rely on ancient writings? Why hasn't god popped in from
time to time just to let us know he's still around?
>Christianity has obvious points of contention, leading to denominationalism,
>that indicates a lack in human reason, not a lack in God's revelation.
>Hope that clarified a little,
You wish. All it did was prove you are a deluded individual and
hiding from reality.
>kestrel_mp
--
Elroy
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <362d5db1....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>>Where does the bad name attribute start, at least with regards to one
>>theist's views of another theist's views? Does it start at the point
>>where one theist dosen't believe in a talking snake, and the other one
>>does? Or maybe that jesus was crucified on friday instead of saturday
>>or thursday? Or does it go beyond all the stories in the bible, and
>>boil down to common sense?
>No, its when theists make arguments based on unsound logic.
What other kind arguments do theists make besides these?
>We can be a harsh internal critics.
And so much good it does, right? My interpretation is better than
yours, so let me just create a new denomination? How long has
this been going on, and how productive and/or destructive has it
been?
>The hope is that the illogical will learn enough logic to hold their own
>in a debate. The above poster failed to do so.
I can't help but laugh when I see theists arguing amongst themselves.
It's like arguing which is the best favorite color. Red is better, no
blue is better, no it's green, no it's purple, because if you drape
yourself in purple you will reach heaven because purple is god's
favorite color.
--
Elroy
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>That's beside the point. The question is, if these men are liars, why
>>cannot these wise discerners realize that? Why do they believe Gish
>>and Morris and their published lies?
>
> The same way most people still believe in Bill Clinton. "As long as he does his job...... etc."
No that won't do. Your claim was that such discernment brought wisdom.
Yet it doesn't. Perusal of the Bible has not shown those who study it
that Gish and Morris and their ilk are liars and frauds, which they
undoubtedly are. Now whats wrong with your recipe for truth?
>>> But like I said, you have the handicap of not being able to discern anything good about
>anyone.
>>
>>Because I do not discern good in those of whom we speak it means I
>>cannot find it in anyone? Don't be silly! Now think about the issues a
>>bit. Does truth lie only in the direction of happy harmony and
>>positive thinking?
>>
>
> So far you only have shown yourself to be critical of those who set up, promote / publish /
>disseminate and try to live up to a high moral standard.
Gish and Morris are living up to a high moral standard by breaking one
of the ten commandments on a wholesale basis?
> It should be obvious that where there is "a high moral standard" there will be a high failure rate.
This isn't a matter of failure Frank. I'm not talking about Swaggart's
furtive visits to a motel. I'm talking primarily about Gish and
Morris, who have for several decades printed lies and misleading
propaganda, designed to gull honest Christians. They haven't 'lapsed'
or 'failed'. They believe in Job 13:7. They think it moral to lie for
the Lord.
> It is typical of atheists generally, that
>they want to eliminate the standard and therewith the failure rate.
Well let's examine the fundamental Christian standard shall we?
Not the detail stuff like monagamy and turning the other cheek.
What about the morality of salvation? The guilty sinner, who has
comitted the most heinous crimes, goes unpunished if he is a contrite
true believer. Meanwhile his relatively innocent victims, guilty of
much lesser crimes, go to eternal punishment for their disbelief.
>Then everybody is good,
While the Christians teach everyone is evil. NOW who's negative?
>those that are not can call themselves blameless, because like Charles Manson they consider
>themselves a "product of their society" and therefore innocent. If they don't seem to live up the
>expectations of society, then society is to blame for not caring, loving and teaching them
>sufficiently of what society expects of them. That's the secular humanist view of life: Man is
>basically good, if he is not, then society which nurtured him is to blame.
Or the church that taught him intolerance and hatred.
>>>If keep looking for dirt you will find dirt, but what good will it do you? All it does is confirm
>>>you opinion that the world is populated by deluded fools and crooks.
>>
>>I don't have to look Frank! The lies of the ICR are published
>>worldwide, thrust in my face. The fundamentalist right is campaigning
>>to get their religion taught in the schools in the US.
>>
>
> You are just confirming what I said. What are lies to you are truths to others.
NO. Truth is NOT relative.
>The interesting fact is that you only can see lies, never great truths.
There are no truths, let alone great truths in those publications of
which I speak. The earth is not a measly 6000 years old. The Grand
Canyon was not carved out of bedrock by the Deluge. The second law of
thermodynamics has nothing to say about complexity of amino acids.
These are not theological issues, they're science, where right and
wrong is not relative.
> But then you
>yourself are an example of an atheist trolling religious NGs for Christians to refute. I find you an
>interesting case study of the typical negative cynical mindset, that can only see ugliness, where
>others see great beauty.
Yes, that's some of the atheist mindset alright. We tend to be curious
about how it is that a belief system that has brought about so much
evil can be considered beautiful. We are a minority, and we see so
many true believers around us, yet when we inquire about their
theology, when we read their holy books, we find only a shell of lies.
When we observe their "benevolent" behaviour we see intolerance and
hatred more than anything else. And when we peruse the history of
their faith. Woah! Talk about hell on earth!
>>Do only POSITIVE ways lead to truth? NO!
>
> Yes! Truth is by definition 'positive'. Lies are negative.
You mistake the means for the goal. A lie can be either positive or
negative. So can truth. The earth is not young. The earth is billions
of years old. A positive and a negative, pointing to the same truth.
>>Either the sky is a solid dome or it isn't.
>>Either the earth is round and flat like a plate or it isn't.
>>Either God made Trees before fish or he didn't.
>>Either Jesus died for us or he didn't.
>>
>
> All of these are examples of poetic license and symbolisms for the truth.
Three of them are not. That's either an evasion or a delusion,
depending on how smart you are. Airy artistic fantasies can be
symbolisms subject to poetic license, so the last statement perhaps
comes under that umbrella. The first three are questions of cold
scientific fact. No interpretation. No symbolism.
>That's the way art is. Get used to it!
You seek to leave us in a fog where everyone's interpretation can be
right and truth lies where you choose. All sweetness and light and
benevolent ecumanism. Heck, you can't even sell that to your fellow
Christians let alone us unbelievers!
>>The truth is yes or no, positive or negative. A positive
>>interpretation of a lie or an error is not a good thing, no matter how
>>much pseudo-sweetness and apparent benevolence it seems to generate.
>>Yes you're free to believe a lie, but that's NOT a good thing.
>>
>
> Because I look for the positive, I try to see great truth in any apparent lie and goodness in
>the worst of liars.
A dumb idea.
>A negative personality turns even the greatest truth into a lie, for that is
>what he wants to see. It's the epitome of cynicism and the suicidal mentality.
That's your perception, not a truth. If what you said there was so, I
would discern no truths in the whole world, and I see millions.
>>> The only important difference is whether your interpretation is done lovingly or spitefully.
>>>You seem to specialize in the latter.
>>
>>Now here we have the kernel of your argument it seems to me. A loving
>>gullibility is better than a spiteful disbelief in your view. Anything
>>for loving harmony and let the con-men and the liars take in the
>>suckers by the millions! Any lie is acceptable as long as it's
>>artfully told!
>
> In some ways that is true.
It seems we have measured the exact width of the gulf between us here
then.
> I love to see a good conman do his thing. He is an artist all his
>own.
I don't. Not usually anyway.
> But his efforts are usually wasted on me. Getting angry, scolding, nagging etc. will only
>damage MY health not HIS.
If he gets into a position of political power you'll find out
differently!
>Anyway, a televangilist selling his interpretation of the Bible needs to
>be paid by those who listen to him or go hungry. HIS listeners have a choice to pay him or not.
Suppose his goal is to force his theology on your children in the
public schools? What then?
>>> Like I said: ALL art is inerrant,
>>
>>No it's not Frank! That's the point! Some of the most accomplished
>>artists in the history of the world have been expert liars. Josef
>>Goebbels was an artist par-excellance. He took in an entire notion
>>over the space of a decade and led them all straight to hell on earth.
>
> Ask any Philippino about why Marcos is still admired "because he was the biggest and most
>successful thief in history" will be the reply.
And the man who admires him for that doesn't realize that it was his
own future Marcos stole.
>Are you God yourself, or live according to God's word unfailingly?
No, I don't. I don't condone slavery for one thing. The Bible does.
>>> That's where your problem lies. People like you would send a
>>>Picasso back for a refund, because the nose isn't painted in the right place.
>>
>>While people like you will gull rich idiots into paying millions for it.
>
> Like I said: You don't know how to appreciate art.
Nor do the fools you con into paying millions for Picassos.
>>> No, art is an abstraction of reality and only becomes true to the beholder.
>>
>>Truth isn't relative.
>
> Watch it! You are now leaving atheist' domain. For official atheist position is: There ain't no
>absolutes.
Bleep! Misunderstanding alert! You just leapt from a specific to a
generality. There are no MORAL absolutes. There are no absolute truths
about subjective matters like beauty, justice, good and evil. That
doesn't mean 2 + 2 isn't absolutely 4.
>It's the theists' position that 'truth' is NOT relative, but absolute and is therefore
>called God in their documentation.
Whereas the philososopher recognizes that truth is relative only with
respect to subjective matters.
>>> Loads of art that hasn't come true to me yet, but that makes life interesting.
>>>Little by little meaning emerges out of chaos.
>>
>>Or delusion as the case may be. Is your artist a Goebbels?
>>
> You got to have faith in yourself and trust the Holy (healthy, wholesome) spirit of God to warn
>you of fakes.
And the " Holy (healthy, wholesome) spirit of God" clearly, obviously,
flagrantly fails to do that, every day, all over the world.
>You would automatically have spotted a Goebbels during his hegemony, because to you
>everybody is a fake,
Specific to generality again! You're consistent, I'll give you that!
No, for me there are legions of people who are not fakes. They are
called scientists, and their truths are tested and re-tested by
suceeding generations of their kind. A few are in error and a very few
are frauds, but they have demonstrated the general truth of their
findings over and over. Science works, and has done more for mankind
than religion ever has.
>>> How can you compare science with art?
>>
>>By results. Did we get to the moon or didn't we?
>>
>
> You ARE a sap, aren't you. Talk about propagandist Goebbel's lies.That was an unmanned landing
>dressed up to look like a manned landing for propaganda purposes, (successfully I might add. For it
>spelled the beginning of end for the Soviet Union). Check with Bill Kaysing's WE NEVER WENT TO THE
>MOON, AMERICA'S $30 BILLION SWINDLE, Desert Publications, Cornville, Ariz.
You ARE gullible aren't you! The technology required to carry that
sort of fraud off would be better than the actual technology to get 14
men to the moon.
>>>Science deals with facts.
>>
>>Exactly. Facts. Truth.
>
> If you are not being conned.
You're still dealing with facts if you are being conned. In other
words there is a truth to be found, whether you find it or not. With
religion there is no way to ever arrive at a truth.
>>> But art, religion, philosophy etc. deals with imagination.
>>
>>That's fine. Just take note that what it imagines may or may not be
>>true.
>>
> It largely depends on the interpretation.
Objective truths don't depend on interpretations. When you say a
sunset is beautiful, it's an interpretation, an opinion. It's a
subjective 'truth', true only to you and those who agree with you.
>the negative mind-set will ALWAYS and only distrust
>spiritual absolutes,
The logical mind set . . .
> such as love, care, honesty, patients, generosity, helpfulness, trust and a
>host of other positive abstracts which religions codify, publish and promote as desirable and hold
>up as ideals for believers in the values to live up to.
Like slavery?
> It reminds me of one Christmas where I handed each kid of the extended family a present. All
>thanked me except one. She looked at the present and exclaimed: Only this? That's less than
>everybody else got. You hate me don't you! Well, I hate you too. Well, ain't that an example of a
>negative mindset or is it? Recognize yourself?
Nope. You want to drop everybody who won't buy your philosophy into
that oversimplified stereotype. Because they don't believe you they
don't believe anybody. Specific to generality again!
>>>And don't forget, that all scientific facts were first conceived in
>>>someone's imagination, so don't knock it.
>>
>>I don't knock imagination. It's gullibility and rationalization I decry.
>
> Who is better at rationalizing licentiousness and profligacy than atheists?
THEISTS!
> What well known, published code of ethics do they have to live up to?
The Secular Humanist Manifesto. See
http://atheism.miningco.com/MSUBhum.HTM
While you're at it you might check out the other articles on that web
page.
>Julius Huxley said, when asked why some people
>where so against the concept of a God: I presume, the notion of a God interferes with their sexual
>mores. And I for one concur with him.
Me too. Your Bible tells me I must not covet my neighbor's wife, must
not lust after her in my heart even though she's got a cute behind. It
says I can steal his whole life from him by enslaving him though. Even
gives me rules and regulations to follow when doing it.
>>>>> You would be well advise to take stock of your thinking habits, for negative cynical people
>>>>> die young and are more often in poor health than positive thinkers.
>>>>
>>>>Sheepdip. One of Christianity's biggest critics was Bertie Russell and
>>>>he lived to be 98.
>>>>
>>> Does one exception make the rule invalid?
>>
>>In science, yes.
>
> Do check up on the moon landing and other frauds.
Don't debate me on that one fella! I'll shred you!
## CONTINUARE- FAC MEAM DIEM - Clintius Eastvoodicus
Frank A.S.
>
>You wish. All it did was prove you are a deluded individual and
>hiding from reality.
>
and even that is not of yourself but a gift of God. You live a delusion, pal.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe
in anything."
-anon-
Frank A.S.
>"Kestrel_MP" <kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>>Elroy Willis wrote in message <362d5db1....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>
>>No, its when theists make arguments based on unsound logic.
>
>It's like arguing which is the best favorite color. Red is better, no
>blue is better, no it's green, no it's purple, because if you drape
>yourself in purple you will reach heaven because purple is god's
>favorite color.
>
that to escape
the crushing boredom of atheist NGs, for they have nothing to discuss. Any discussion and
exploration of such an ancient philosophical document as the Bible then becomes "arguing".
Atheists are unable to decode ancient symbolisms and metaphor. It's an unfortunate disability,
similar in character to the tone-deaf person who sings loudly off-key in the church choir, doesn't
know it, and is deeply offended by anyone telling him.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
LOVE is the Way to eternal Life according to Jesus (Luke 10:25-28)
LOVE is the Way to heaven. Love is the Spirit of Christ.
LOVE is the gospel. For God so LOVED the world… (John 3:16)
LOVE is the Law of the Universe.
LOVE is the Light of the world. Jesus is LOVE.
LOVE is the Spirit of God, the Divine Holy Spirit of Christ.
LOVE, being Christ, is our Salvation.
Even God's wrath is a sign of His LOVE (Heb 12:5)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
Frank A.S.
>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:54:05 -0400, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> The same way most people still believe in Bill Clinton. "As long as he does his job......
etc."
>
>No that won't do. Your claim was that such discernment brought wisdom.
>Yet it doesn't. Perusal of the Bible has not shown those who study it
>that Gish and Morris and their ilk are liars and frauds, which they
>undoubtedly are. Now whats wrong with your recipe for truth?
>
Nobody who believes in anything escapes your labeling them "liars and frauds". To label all who
seek advice from a great psychiatrist such as Jesus and those who go to his hospital -the church-
hypocrites, liars and cheats, because they don't immediately fit YOUR interpretation and expectation
of perfection is more than ludicrous.
I am not going to waste my time defending the whole theistic world fropm your baseless and
unproved accusations that they are "liars and frauds". Considering you yourself are hardly perfect,
I will assume you count yourself among the "liar and frauds" and therefore not to be taken
seriously.
>
>Well let's examine the fundamental Christian standard shall we?
>Not the detail stuff like monagamy and turning the other cheek.
>What about the morality of salvation? The guilty sinner, who has
>comitted the most heinous crimes, goes unpunished if he is a contrite
>true believer. Meanwhile his relatively innocent victims, guilty of
>much lesser crimes, go to eternal punishment for their disbelief.
>
That's the way the paternal love of God and man is. Your kid is your kid, even if he turns
against you. But you can't force him into your presence and your heaven against his will. As a
father, your heart weeps were you to see your child destroying himself and turning his life into
hell. Love knows no force.
>>
>> Because I look for the positive, I try to see great truth in any apparent lie and goodness in
>>the worst of liars.
>
>A dumb idea.
>
>>A negative personality turns even the greatest truth into a lie, for that is
>>what he wants to see. It's the epitome of cynicism and the suicidal mentality.
>
>That's your perception, not a truth. If what you said there was so, I
>would discern no truths in the whole world, and I see millions.
>
That's what you say, but I never see you extoll any of your great philosophical truths, your
high ideals and your purpose in life.
>
>Suppose his goal is to force his theology on your children in the
>public schools? What then?
>
I would be against that in comparative religion course, but not aginst it if taught to members
of his denomination. However my children are FORCED to listen to homosexuals extolling the joys of
the homosexual life-style in sex-eduaction class, and all parents' protests are disregarded, as the
teaching of chastity till marriage is poo-pooed.
>
>Nor do the fools you con into paying millions for Picassos.
>
I guess that sums up your attitude towards ALL art pretty well. As you are perceptually
handicapped, its no wonder, that ancient Biblical philosophical symbolism and metaphore escape your
comprehension.
>
>And the " Holy (healthy, wholesome) spirit of God" clearly, obviously,
>flagrantly fails to do that, every day, all over the world.
>
Unfortunately the HS does not use a rubber hammer to get your attention.
>>You would automatically have spotted a Goebbels during his hegemony, because to you
>>everybody is a fake,
>
>Specific to generality again! You're consistent, I'll give you that!
>No, for me there are legions of people who are not fakes. They are
>called scientists,
I know of quite a lot of scientist who fudge their test result to advance their careers. You
sure love to believe in fallable human beings, don't you? Anyway, science has nothing to do with
religion. Even the science in the Bible is a halfhearted attempt at metaphysics, and is only
incidental to the core message, which has to do with: Love, care, honesty, truthfulness,
dependability, loyalty, steadfastness in the face of temptation, generosity, kindness, humility etc.
etc. all the qualities which make a human a Mensch.
>
>You ARE gullible aren't you! The technology required to carry that
>sort of fraud off would be better than the actual technology to get 14
>men to the moon.
>
Not in an age of "Empire strikes back". You just want to believe what you want to be true.
>You're still dealing with facts if you are being conned. In other
>words there is a truth to be found, whether you find it or not. With
>religion there is no way to ever arrive at a truth.
>
That is a categorical statement needing proof.
>
>Objective truths don't depend on interpretations.
Religious truths having to do with good and evil and the desire to advance the good, have
nothing whatever to do with "objective truths".
>Like slavery?
Many a slave was treated better than today's employee. Christianity never advocated cruelty to
slaves, quite the opposite.
>
>THEISTS!
>
Why? Did Swaggard justify himself in public, when he cried out to his God: "Lord God forgive me,
for I have sinned". NO atheist would EVER do that, because they are ALWAYS self-justified.
>> What well known, published code of ethics do they have to live up to?
>
>The Secular Humanist Manifesto. See
>http://atheism.miningco.com/MSUBhum.HTM
>
Thought you were a pal of Austin. He also has no idea how to foster and promote humane qualities
in mankind of all levels of intelligence, because of his obsession with "science".
The absence of moral training in home and school will come to haunt and bring down our
civilization if not reversed. Good thing I won't be around to witness the "reaping of the
whirlwind".
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe
in anything."
-anon
Libertarius
Brothers Grimm? Could you explain the spiritual implications of Little
Red Ridinghood or Puss-n-Boots?
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
John Ings
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>> Your claim was that such discernment brought wisdom.
>>Yet it doesn't. Perusal of the Bible has not shown those who study it
>>that Gish and Morris and their ilk are liars and frauds, which they
>>undoubtedly are. Now whats wrong with your recipe for truth?
>>
> Nobody who believes in anything escapes your labeling them "liars and frauds".
Unwarrented generalization again. That's a very bad debating habit you
must break Frank. Because I label specific people liars and frauds for
specific lies they have repeatedly published over a space of decades
does NOT mean I accuse everybody of such behaviour.
>To label all who
>seek advice from a great psychiatrist such as Jesus and those who go to his hospital -the church-
>hypocrites, liars and cheats, because they don't immediately fit YOUR interpretation and expectation
>of perfection is more than ludicrous.
It would be if I did so but I do not. Many honest people are
Christians and many Christians are honest people. They don't feel the
need to lie for God the way Gish and Morris and their ilk do. They
don't claim fraudulent degrees from non-existant universities. They
don't publish the same old tired lies year after year.
> I am not going to waste my time defending the whole theistic world fropm your baseless and
>unproved accusations that they are "liars and frauds".
I can prove my acusations in detail any time you like. They are not
baseless, and I'm not accusing the whole theistic world of lying. My
question is: if perusal of the Bible brings wisdom, why do Bible
readers fail to discern these specific, named liars as such? Why
haven't Christians found them out?
>>Well let's examine the fundamental Christian standard shall we?
>>Not the detail stuff like monagamy and turning the other cheek.
>>What about the morality of salvation? The guilty sinner, who has
>>comitted the most heinous crimes, goes unpunished if he is a contrite
>>true believer. Meanwhile his relatively innocent victims, guilty of
>>much lesser crimes, go to eternal punishment for their disbelief.
>>
>
> That's the way the paternal love of God and man is.
Then God is immoral in my opinion. Evil.
>Your kid is your kid, even if he turns
>against you. But you can't force him into your presence and your heaven against his will.
But you could have made him a better person. Instead you sum up his
sins and at the end of his time on earth, propose to torment him for
all eternity.
> As a
>father, your heart weeps were you to see your child destroying himself and turning his life into
>hell. Love knows no force.
You dodged the question. All this hypothetical hellbound person did
was believe the wrong preacher. He committed no murders, never stole a
thing in his life, lusted after his neighbor's wife only fleetingly.
But he isn't a true believer so he gets eternal torment. This is love?
>>>A negative personality turns even the greatest truth into a lie, for that is
>>>what he wants to see. It's the epitome of cynicism and the suicidal mentality.
>>
>>That's your perception, not a truth. If what you said there was so, I
>>would discern no truths in the whole world, and I see millions.
>>
> That's what you say, but I never see you extoll any of your great philosophical truths, your
>high ideals and your purpose in life.
Deosn't mean I havn't got any.
>>Suppose his goal is to force his theology on your children in the
>>public schools? What then?
>>
> I would be against that in comparative religion course,
Well that's what Gish and Morris and a large segment of the
fundamentalist movement in the US are up to. That's their announced
goal. That's why they are sneaking members of their churches onto
schoolboards nationwide.
>However my children are FORCED to listen to homosexuals extolling the joys of
>the homosexual life-style in sex-eduaction class, and all parents' protests are disregarded, as the
>teaching of chastity till marriage is poo-pooed.
I very much doubt that.
>>Nor do the fools you con into paying millions for Picassos.
>>
> I guess that sums up your attitude towards ALL art pretty well.
Pretty well. I watch a BBC program every Sunday called the Antiques
Roadshow. It is populated with dotty English types who bring in their
treasures for evaluation by expert antiquarians. I have no problem
with these collectors appreciation of their pottery and porcelain and
silver. I do not choke when one of the experts tells a befuddled old
lady that the bronze casting that has been decorating her back garden
for years is worth $10,000 on the art auction market. It doesn't
bother me that a 14th century communion cup containing a few hundred
dollars worth of silver is assesed at $12,000.
The price of paintings however is obscene. A Picasso may be fine
abstract art, the work of a genius, but it isn't worth millions. Tens
of thousand maybe, but the seven and eight figure prices one hears
about are rediculous.
> As you are perceptually
>handicapped, its no wonder, that ancient Biblical philosophical symbolism and metaphore escape your
>comprehension.
That's all very well, but what I asked you to demonstrate is the
wisdom this perception is supposed to have provided you. If Christians
are so wise, why can't they tell when fellow Christians are lying in
their teeth?
>>And the " Holy (healthy, wholesome) spirit of God" clearly, obviously,
>>flagrantly fails to do that, every day, all over the world.
>>
>
> Unfortunately the HS does not use a rubber hammer to get your attention.
In other words the HS doesn't work.
>>> to you everybody is a fake,
>>
>>Specific to generality again! You're consistent, I'll give you that!
>>No, for me there are legions of people who are not fakes. They are
>>called scientists,
>
> I know of quite a lot of scientist who fudge their test result to advance their careers.
And because you know, you know that other scientists caught them at
it. OUR error and dishonesty detection system works!
>You sure love to believe in fallable human beings, don't you?
All but the religious ones.
> Anyway, science has nothing to do with religion.
But it has to do with wisdom.
> Even the science in the Bible is a halfhearted attempt at metaphysics, and is only
>incidental to the core message, which has to do with: Love, care, honesty, truthfulness,
>dependability, loyalty, steadfastness in the face of temptation, generosity, kindness, humility etc.
>etc. all the qualities which make a human a Mensch.
Yes, it is a fascinating record of man's attempts, and failure, to
figure out just what those things are.
>>You're still dealing with facts if you are being conned. In other
>>words there is a truth to be found, whether you find it or not. With
>>religion there is no way to ever arrive at a truth.
>>
> That is a categorical statement needing proof.
Here's a philosophers mental exercise:
Assume you are standing in the presence of God.
Assume it is God's intent to prove to you that he IS God.
Now how would he do so?
>>Objective truths don't depend on interpretations.
>
> Religious truths having to do with good and evil and the desire to advance the good, have
>nothing whatever to do with "objective truths".
Exactly. They are subjective. Matters of opinion. Your opinion, my
opinion, God's opinion, but always opinion. And subjective truths are
never absolute.
>>Like slavery?
>
> Many a slave was treated better than today's employee.
And many weren't.
> Christianity never advocated cruelty to slaves, quite the opposite.
That failure to condemn slavery remains the most glaring flaw in the
Bible's claim to be the ultimate standard of morality however.
>>THEISTS!
>>
> Why? Did Swaggard justify himself in public, when he cried out to his God: "Lord God forgive me,
>for I have sinned".
Have Gish and Morris confessed to their decades of published lies?
>NO atheist would EVER do that, because they are ALWAYS self-justified.
No, because they haven't a God to cry out to, and don't believe a
visit to a whore to be a sin.
> The absence of moral training in home and school will come to haunt and bring down our
>civilization if not reversed.
It was Christianity that presided over the downfall of civilization in
Europe the last time.
IRAN: One nation under God.
stoney
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
[snip]
>Do atheists ever argue amongst themselves?
Sure. You might search dejanews for the 'discussion thread' about the
Holy Round Meal [pizza] and which toppings were blessed by the IPU.
:))))
Regards,
Stoney
Religion is a high profit industry.
Silly superstitions/religion is the problem not the solution.
Forged headers due to spam bots. Real addy is: [phonetic]
charlie charlie one six seven one two [at]
charlie delta sierra november echo tango [dot]
november echo tango
#9
Frank A.S.
>>>
>> Is that why you troll theist NGs, so you can "laugh" at Christians?
>
>not REAL Christians. But if you were, you wouldn't be as much fun!
>
You are Satan incarnate for sure. At least you are where we can see you. Your laugh is a laugh
from hell, and is no laughing matter for believers in their own NGs, but you help strengthen our
resolve to resist you.
Satan! -Depart from us. We ask it the name of Jesus.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Frank A.S. wrote:
> Is this another of your continuing attempts to undermine Biblical
>prohibition of sexual immorality? To convert Christians to atheism? Promote
>licentiousness and profligacy in our society? Corrupt the young into loveless
>and heartless abusers of each other, who like addicts seeking a fix to dull
>the pain for the moment, use sex in an orgy of utter loneliness, cynicism
>and despair?
We yes! You're correct on all counts, for a change!
The Speedbyrd(tm) :>
Alvin
everybody,God does what He wants to do an nobody can do any thing about it,
you just pray that God has not chose you to spend eternity in a fire burning
hell,. alvin
John Ings wrote in message <361edac...@crc-news.doc.ca>...
John Ings
>God does not care what you think of Him.God never said He loves
>everybody,God does what He wants to do an nobody can do any thing about it,
>you just pray that God has not chose you to spend eternity in a fire burning
>hell,. alvin
You better pray that too, if God is the monster Christians imagine.
The odds that you have picked the right theology to get you to Heaven
are quite long.
## There can be little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in
Heaven.
Glenn Webb
Frank, and I are atheist-theists, we see something in Matt.25:31-46;
that I am very surprised he has not brought up "belief" in the literal
since has little or nothing to do with it. Note we are talking
abstracts, symbolics, and the like / "positive renderings" John
10:25-38 with John 17 declares us, collectively, as God Himself, it is
very 'godly' to then say (being part of the Godhead) I HAVE NO GOD
ABOVE ME.
Fully studied, (and a dirty secret known by many collecting offerings)
Christainity is as a perfect atheist philosophy as Buddhism is ! It is
no wonder that Frank includes Jesus, Buddah, and the other, as one and
the same.
Heck, heaven and hell are abstracts as well; Ask the Jews ! Heaven a
presently existing happiness, hell a presently existing misery !
You have been listening to too many fundies, who haven't gotten past
our Spiritual BABYHOOD.
>
>> As a
>>father, your heart weeps were you to see your child destroying himself and turning his life into
>>hell. Love knows no force.
>
>You dodged the question. All this hypothetical hellbound person did
>was believe the wrong preacher. He committed no murders, never stole a
>thing in his life, lusted after his neighbor's wife only fleetingly.
>But he isn't a true believer so he gets eternal torment. This is love?
He did not dodge the question, hell always exists, that is not to say
anyone stays an eternity in it. He was seeing the realistic truth of
hell (not the fundies literal stance on it), hell is something you put
yourself in, and something you get yourself out of !
Jesus said "I came not to judge..." And "I judge you not".
Note; Frank said "your heart weeps... turning his life into hell"
didn't he ? Read his statement above.
Glenn Webb
John Ings
wrote:
>>>>Well let's examine the fundamental Christian standard shall we?
>>>>Not the detail stuff like monagamy and turning the other cheek.
>>>>What about the morality of salvation? The guilty sinner, who has
>>>>comitted the most heinous crimes, goes unpunished if he is a contrite
>>>>true believer. Meanwhile his relatively innocent victims, guilty of
>>>>much lesser crimes, go to eternal punishment for their disbelief.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the way the paternal love of God and man is.
>>
>>Then God is immoral in my opinion. Evil.
>>
>>>Your kid is your kid, even if he turns
>>>against you. But you can't force him into your presence and your heaven against his will.
>>
>>But you could have made him a better person. Instead you sum up his
>>sins and at the end of his time on earth, propose to torment him for
>>all eternity.
>
>Frank, and I are atheist-theists,
On the face of it that sounds like an oxymoron, but I'll assume you
have a coherent viewpoint in mind.
> we see something in Matt.25:31-46;
I see a malignant threat there . . .
>that I am very surprised he has not brought up "belief" in the literal
>since has little or nothing to do with it. Note we are talking
>abstracts, symbolics, and the like / "positive renderings" John
>10:25-38 with John 17 declares us, collectively, as God Himself, it is
>very 'godly' to then say (being part of the Godhead) I HAVE NO GOD
>ABOVE ME.
If that's Christianity, it's a schismatic, heretic form of
Christianity.
>Fully studied, (and a dirty secret known by many collecting offerings)
>Christainity is as a perfect atheist philosophy as Buddhism is !
Well your version is perhaps. Buddhists are still mystics however, and
I am a very un-mystic materialist, so we're still at odds.
> It is no wonder that Frank includes Jesus, Buddah, and the other, as one and
>the same. Heck, heaven and hell are abstracts as well; Ask the Jews ! Heaven a
>presently existing happiness, hell a presently existing misery !
>You have been listening to too many fundies, who haven't gotten past
>our Spiritual BABYHOOD.
They and the mainstream folk are the majority however. You are part of
a tiny splinter group unless I have missed something here. What do you
call yourselves besides atheist-theists?
>>> As a
>>>father, your heart weeps were you to see your child destroying himself and turning his life into
>>>hell. Love knows no force.
>>
>>You dodged the question. All this hypothetical hellbound person did
>>was believe the wrong preacher. He committed no murders, never stole a
>>thing in his life, lusted after his neighbor's wife only fleetingly.
>>But he isn't a true believer so he gets eternal torment. This is love?
>
>He did not dodge the question, hell always exists, that is not to say
>anyone stays an eternity in it.
That's what the majority of Christians say. I admit the Biblical
passages in support of this are often vague, and the whole concept of
Hell is as much the product of the perverted minds of mideval
theologians as it is Biblical.
> He was seeing the realistic truth of
>hell (not the fundies literal stance on it), hell is something you put
>yourself in, and something you get yourself out of !
That's a modern rationalization, accepted in some of the more liberal
churches.
>Jesus said "I came not to judge..." And "I judge you not".
That isn't what your Matt.25:31-46 passage says.
## The light of faith makes us see what we believe.
ST THOMAS AQUINAS