Christianity and Free Will
Michael J Nash
wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those of
us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
their god sends us to hell. This having been said, the question remains:
what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
interpretation of the term?
Let's look at what free will actually means by examining its relationship
with rape, an act of cruelty that by its nature is inextricably linked with
the issue of free will. Rape, by definition, is any act of sexual
intercourse in which a person is forced, against their will, to have sex or
perform sexual acts. Obviously, a person who says "no" to having sex and is
forced to do so anyway has been raped, by any definition of the word. But
what if a person says yes?
There are instances in which a person might consent to sex and still be a
victim of rape. Take, for example, statutory rape, or sex with a person who
is deemed unable to give their informed consent. The law in most places has
established that people below a certain age (in most parts of the US, 17
years old) are not mature enough to give their informed consent to having
sex, whether or not they are willing. It is also generally recognized that
individuals who are mentally incapacitated, whether naturally or through the
influence of drugs or alcohol, are similarly unable to give informed
consent. Sex with such individuals is therefore considered an act of rape,
as punishable in the eyes of the law as forcing sex on someone at gunpoint.
Then there's the sticky issue of what most of us would call "sexual
harassment". Here's the scenario: an employer approaches one of his
subordinates, and makes it clear to her that if she consents to sex with
him, it will be to her future benefit (pay raise, promotion, etc.); but if
she refuses, she will suffer the consequences (loss of job, demotion, etc.).
If she has sex with him, it's not as if she's being "forced" to, and it's
not as if she were incapable of giving her informed consent. Most people
would not label a scenario like this as rape. Consider, however, that the
woman is being corerced into doing something she would otherwise not want to
do, at the risk of suffering unpleasant consequences if she refuses. Such a
scenario, therefore, while not labeled as rape by most, is placed into its
own category, one which is viewed with similar contempt by most people and
equally subject to punishment for the offending party.
By looking at what constitutes rape, we can conclude about free will that it
involves the informed ability to make a choice about something, without
being influenced by force or other forms of coercion. Does this mesh with
the Christian ideal of free will? Let's look at the facts: according to the
Bible and contemporary Christian thinking, we as humans have been given the
ability to choose between salvation and damnation. But are we able to make
an informed decision?
The Bible says a great many things about the universe, the role of the
Christian god in that universe, and the potential consequences of our
thoughts and actions as humans with free will. Science has repudiated many,
if not most, of the Bible's assertions to the point that it requires a leap
of blind faith in order to accept them as valid; one may accept the validity
of these assertions, because anything is possible outside the limited scope
of human understanding, but only as supernatural, and not natural,
phenomena. We cannot observe the alleged workings of the Christian god in
the everyday world around us; there are stories here and there of miracles,
but none have been confirmed. Given, then, that the world around us offers
no obvious evidence of the Christian god's existence, and that the
assertions of the Christian myth are only possible outside of the realm of
scientific law, it seems obviously impossible to make an informed decision
about whether or not to worship the Christian god. It cannot, therefore, be
said that the Christian god (if he exists) gave us free will in the decision
of whether or not to worship.
But let's say such evidence were to exist. We are then faced with a
"choice": do we accept and worship the Christian god, thereby making
ourselves eligible for eternity in heaven, or do we decline to do so,
thereby condemning ourselves to eternal torture in hell? The Christian god,
in such a scenario, is attempting to coerce us into worshipping him, because
not to do so under such circumstances would be, on a personal level,
calamitous. Where is the free will in such an arrangement?
It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
Timothy Sutter
> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
in the face of legal statutes, do you
still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
of course you do.
would making the choice to murder be beneficial to you?
(we'll assume that you "murdered" a co-worker
because he stepped on your shoes while
walking to the water cooler)
*if* there was no legal apparatus
to demand recompense for your murder,
would someone kin to the victim
seek to gain justice by killing you?
we'll say yes.
so, your actions have brought you in
the position of losing your life.
and you have no one of which to say,
"why didn't you warn me that murder could get *me* killed?"
and if you did, you could look upon that warning as kindly advice.
and not some arbitrary removal of your "freedom" of will
handed down by some despotic overlord to create a race of
mindless robots to sing his praises.
any of this sinking in?
Torsten Odenhage
Try reading the works of Calvinist theologians. (I recommend reading Jonathan
Edwards, or Gordon Clark)They say basically that as long as people feel they are
free to choose what they want, this gives them free will, but.... (and this is a
BIG but)... God steers their will so they want what he wants them to want. True,
this is just an illusion of free will, but certainly in this scenario, nobody
would feel hard done by.
So why does God elect some people to eternal life (or other more trivial
action over other ones) and some to perdition. If we accept that God is
omniscient, the corollary would have to be all wise, and therefore "God
knows best" to put it simply.
The alternative to this lack of real freedom of choice is Arminianism, but
it is fraught with too many problems to be acceptable. For example, if
human beings are "fallen" and "utterly sinful" without the knowledge of
God, how does it come about that they seek God and are "saved". Surely not
by "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps" as C.S. Lewis says.
I like the Molinist proposal which uses the concept of *middle knowledge"
which is basically that since God not only knows what *will* happen, but
*would* happen (i.e. all possible outcomes of any given hypothetical yet
unrealized situation), then God chooses the best outcome based on how he
knows people would react, or what he knows would eventuate from any given
action.
Regarding "salvation" and election, this means God perhaps might elect
those who he knows *would* react positively to receiving the gospel
messages, but ignores those who he knows would not receive it.
Torsten
Supreme Patriarch
You titled the thread Christianity and Free Will. And that is where the
problem lies. We usually claim the existence of an omnipotent supreme
being to "solve" problems that are beyond our comprehension. In the
case of free will, by claiming the existence of an all powerful god, we
have created a problem - would such a being control us or allow us the
freedom to control ourselves?
Eliminate the concept of god, and you've almost eliminated the debate
over free will. (And I say almost because there have been some who claim
there is no free will because we are creatures of instinct.)
John Tyrrell
--
The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic
http://agnostic.religion.webjump.com/
Frank Wustner
> Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
> wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
> wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition.
(snip rest)
The counter to that claim is to inform them of two facts.
#1: Their bible *never* says that man has free will. Never.
#2: Their bible often says that man does *not* have any free
will. Romans 9 is a good example of that, where it
says how man is nothing but clay in God's hands.
So according to their own holy book, they are wrong. And I'd
bet that being wrong like that is a really terrible sin, also
according to their holy book.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Michael Spencer
Christian if all they had were the "facts". There is definitely not any
hard evidence to "prove" that God exists but I think that something this
newsgroup fails to address is that, like they say in the movie "Contact", to
be a believer in God is to be in the majority on this planet. Therefore,
the "quest" for knowledge about God is a spiritual journey that most people
decide to take. Generally, only North Americans approach it from the stand
of "what are the facts". Most sensible people, however, know to start with
"what does my heart and conscience tell me about the nature of 'things'".
Being a believer is a spiritual thing, not a factual thing. If you love
"the facts" so much, go read C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" or books
by Ravi Zacharias.
While learning facts may be helpful, remorse over sin, the questions about
what is after death, and knowing that there is a God are the best way to
start the journey.
The bottom line is that when you have asked God to forgive you of your sins
in Jesus' name and make you a new person, He actually does it and you can
feel it. Feelings are facts though and that is why there can be no
"logical, factual" discussion between an atheist and a Christian. A
Christian's testimony is that "Once I was lost, but now I am found" - it is
a renewal, a change of heart, a desire to please God, the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit that tells us that there is a God and that we are now accepted.
There is a continual "put down" to these kinds of answers and that is
understandable because we are all different and no one has anyone else's
unique experiences. But as a Christian to an Atheist I can tell you that
there is a God because of how He changed me overnight. In an instant I was
changed so that I could no longer use foul language, no desire to sin
sexually, and a great desire to know God and help suffering people. This
change happened instantly and I know it was God. That is my experience, it
is probably not yours, but that is not to say your life is any less
important to God. He does exist, he does desire your love, but He also
desires most of all, for you to continue to have freewill.
God does not want you to be "coerced" - He wants your freewill decision to
be to choose good, and thus choose Him. The choice is, and always will be
yours. The only thing that can block the way between you and God is sin and
pride.
Michael J Nash <NA...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7rvcsg$5k5g$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
Chris L. Beltz
Frank Wustner <see...@for.email.com> wrote in message
news:see-sig-1809...@user-33qtial.dialup.mindspring.com...
> "Michael J Nash" <NA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's
alleged
> > wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
> > wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition.
>
> The counter to that claim is to inform them of two facts.
>
> #1: Their bible *never* says that man has free will. Never.
> #2: Their bible often says that man does *not* have any free
> will. Romans 9 is a good example of that, where it
> says how man is nothing but clay in God's hands.
Interesting. You must not have read 1 Peter 2:16.
The question as to whether man has free will is rhetorical. When was the
last time God stopped you from doing as you wished? Maybe our definitions
of free will differ. The American Heritage Dictionary defines free will as
"the belief that man's choices are or can be voluntary". I have had plenty
of involuntary choices throughout life from my parents, teachers, etc, but
none from God.
Don Kresch
that
>Michael J Nash wrote:
>
>> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
>> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>
>i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
>had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
>in the face of legal statutes, do you
>still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Chris L. Beltz
Don Kresch <rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com> wrote in message
news:37e7f499...@news.usenetserver.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:17:16 -0400, in alt.atheism, Timothy Sutter told us
all
> that
>
> >Michael J Nash wrote:
> >
are,
> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
> >
> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
>
> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
Agreed. Good point, Don.
>
> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
I disagee with you here, Don. How, if God created everything and is
omniscient, does that effect your free will? My parents overruled my free
will as a child, instructing me to eat vegetables (otherwise, candy would
have been the sustenance of my life!), but not God. When was the last time
God intervened, and overruled a single thought or action that you've had?
This would be evidence of God interferring with your free will.
You do have free will.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter told us all that
> >Michael J Nash wrote:
> >> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
> >i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those
/of
/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
/their god sends us to hell. This having been said, the question remains:
/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
/interpretation of the term?
*this* is a load of bullcrap.
> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
ergo, you have free will.
Frank Wustner
> > > Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's
> > > alleged
> > > wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
> > > wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition.
> > (snip rest)
> > The counter to that claim is to inform them of two facts.
> > #1: Their bible *never* says that man has free will. Never.
> > #2: Their bible often says that man does *not* have any free
> > will. Romans 9 is a good example of that, where it
> > says how man is nothing but clay in God's hands.
> Interesting. You must not have read 1 Peter 2:16.
Not lately. I just now looked it up. 1 Peter 2:17 says
that you are free only insofar as you are still a slave
to your god. I don't see how that counts as free will.
> The question as to whether man has free will is rhetorical. When was the
> last time God stopped you from doing as you wished?
I'm not a xian, so I don't think that your god even
exists, let alone that it ever stops me from doing what
I want.
> Maybe our definitions
> of free will differ. The American Heritage Dictionary defines free will as
> "the belief that man's choices are or can be voluntary". I have had plenty
> of involuntary choices throughout life from my parents, teachers, etc, but
> none from God.
Your statement presumes in advance that we really do
have free will. What your bible says is that your god
has hard-wired us to act (and even to think) the way we
do. Hence we have no free will to act or think another
way, according to your bible. That is where some xian
sects get the idea of predestination and what-not, BTW.
> > So according to their own holy book, they are wrong. And I'd
> > bet that being wrong like that is a really terrible sin, also
> > according to their holy book.
I'd have thought, BTW, that the words "their holy book"
as opposed to "our holy book" would have clued you in to
the fact that I'm not a xian. If you check out the
headers of the thread, you'll see that it is a cross-
post between four different news groups, only one of
which is specifically a xian group.
Bud
Chris L. Beltz wrote in message
<0uRE3.18924$N77.1...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>...
>
>Frank Wustner <see...@for.email.com> wrote in message
>news:see-sig-1809...@user-33qtial.dialup.mindspring.com...
>alleged
>> > wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
>> > wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition.
>>
>> The counter to that claim is to inform them of two facts.
>>
>> #1: Their bible *never* says that man has free will. Never.
>> #2: Their bible often says that man does *not* have any free
>> will. Romans 9 is a good example of that, where it
>> says how man is nothing but clay in God's hands.
>
>Interesting. You must not have read 1 Peter 2:16.
Maybe it's just me, but I do not how one can equate "live as servants of
God" to free will.
>The question as to whether man has free will is rhetorical. When was the
>last time God stopped you from doing as you wished?
>
I think you're making a stronger argument for the non-existence of God than
for free will. If I refrain the statement to read, "when was the last time
that Santa Claus stopped you from doing as you wished" would this convince
you that Santa Claus exists?
Bud
Chris L. Beltz wrote in message ...
>
>
>I disagee with you here, Don. How, if God created everything and is
>omniscient, does that effect your free will? My parents overruled my free
>will as a child, instructing me to eat vegetables (otherwise, candy would
>have been the sustenance of my life!), but not God. When was the last time
>God intervened, and overruled a single thought or action that you've had?
>This would be evidence of God interferring with your free will.
Your argument is flawed. You are assuming that one would know whether or
not God intervened and/or overruled. A man wants a certain job. On the
way to the job interview, his car breaks down. As a result, he's late for
the interview and doesn't get the job. Was the breakdown just chance or God
interferring? My point is that there is no proof to support your claim.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter told us all that
> >Don Kresch wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter told us all that
> >> >Michael J Nash wrote:
> >> >> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
> >> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
> >> >i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
> >> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
> >> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
> >/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
> >/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
> >wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those
> >/of
> >/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
> >/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
> >/their god sends us to hell.
> That's a lot of begged questions.
fine, and if I say there is much crap in there
evidently I have sufficient evidence to feel that way.
> > This having been said, the question remains:
> >/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
> >/interpretation of the term?
> Free will is having the real ability to make choices. To be of volitional
> character. The xer interpretation, when coupled with an omniscient god as the
> xer god is supposed to be, does not mesh with reality.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and curse; therefore choose life, that you and
your descendants may live,
apparently it is God's desire that we learn
to make the proper choices that lead to happiness.
and God's worthiness to instruct and
impart wisdom comes from God's "ancient of days" status.
God never forced the hand of anyone.
Job 15:5
For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you
choose the tongue of the crafty.
> >> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> >> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
> >> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
> >> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> Not if there is a god and it is omniscient.
so, you say God directs a thief to steal?
if this so-called "omniscience" lends God
a wisdom that man could never come upon in his short life span,
then we owe it proper consideration.
but we are never forced to take instruction.
> >ergo, you have free will.
> Again, if the god is omniscient and created everything,
> choice and free will are illusory.
but if God is concerned that you make proper choices,
that these proper choices will enable you to live
in peace and happiness,
then instruction in the way that produces life
is of prime importance and no illusion at all.
from your "no God" side, it can be claimed
that all of man's choices are dictated by
his desire to survive.
in God's view, choices made under this criterion
are inherently hurtful and destructive.
in this sense, this removal of man's
worrisome attitude about survival is
the only way to impart to him true free will.
that his choices should no longer be dictated
to him by his sense of mortallity.
God's "forknowledge" that corn seeds planted
in spring will flower in the fall in no way
removes the necessity for man to mature
in his decision making.
and this is what God knows ahead of time.
that some will flower to maturity.
and also, that some will die without bearing fruit.
God is not dictating a mindset,
God is presenting the avenue of understanding.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> >ergo, you have free will.
> Does your god already know if you're going to murder someone tomorrow
> or if someone is going to murder you?
Jeremiah 32:35
They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
Molech, though I did not command them,
nor did it enter into my mind,
that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
_________________________________________________________
try to understand what people mean when
they even use the word "omniscience".
God has a full understanding of the way things work.
but God did not invent all of the thoughts that enter into a man's mind.
God has that attitude that enbles God to make choices.
man needs to be trained in that attitude.
and, evidently, *this* is the intent of God.
that we should learn to use our freedom in such
a manner that it bears fruit and not destruction.
do you need further clarification?
Michael J Nash
Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37E33C7C...@yahoo.com...
> Michael J Nash wrote:
>
> > It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
> > therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>
> had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
If you "couldn't read it all", then what the hell do you know about what I
was trying to say?
(snipped a bunch of irrelevant bullshit)
Since you're just too busy to read my post, here's a brief summary:
1) Many (if not most) Christians claim that God gave all humans free will,
and that the unsaved deserve to go to hell when they die because it was
their decision not to worship Christ.
2) Free will involves the ability to make an informed choice.
3) Free will involves the ability to make a choice that is not influenced
by the fear of retaliation for making the "wrong" choice.
4) The Christian god, if he exists, has not provided his humans subjects
with enough information to verify his alleged existence, therefore we as
humans are incapable of making an informed decision about whether or not to
worship him.
5) The alleged negative consequences of choosing not to worship the
Christian god (if he exists) are dire enough to influence a person's
decision whether or not to worship that god, if they believe that he exists
and is capable of carrying out the threat of eternal damnation for
non-believers.
6) Because we as humans cannot make an informed decision to worship the
Christian god, and because the alleged negative consequences of apostasy
have the potential of influencing a person's decision to worship, free will
does not exist under the Christian worldview.
You can look in my post (if you have the time) to see what I said in support
of my assertions. Please feel free to make a point-by-point refutation of
my assertions if you feel they are in error.
Don Kresch
that
>Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
>> >Michael J Nash wrote:
>
>> >> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
>> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>
>> >i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
>> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
>
>> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
>
>
>/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
>/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
>wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those
>/of
>/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
>/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
>/their god sends us to hell.
That's a lot of begged questions.
> This having been said, the question remains:
>/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
>/interpretation of the term?
Free will is having the real ability to make choices. To be of volitional
character. The xer interpretation, when coupled with an omniscient god as the
xer god is supposed to be, does not mesh with reality.
>> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
>> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
>> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
>> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
>
>and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
Not if there is a god and it is omniscient.
>ergo, you have free will.
Again, if the god is omniscient and created everything, choice and free
will are illusory.
Luke Kraemer
<tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
>ergo, you have free will.
Does your god already know if you're going to murder someone tomorrow
or if someone is going to murder you?
Luke
Michael J Nash
> Your argument makes a lot of sense, and to be sure, no one could be a
> Christian if all they had were the "facts".
Agreed.
There is definitely not any
> hard evidence to "prove" that God exists but I think that something this
> newsgroup fails to address is that, like they say in the movie "Contact",
to
> be a believer in God is to be in the majority on this planet. Therefore,
> the "quest" for knowledge about God is a spiritual journey that most
people
> decide to take.
Why should that play into the equation? If the question of belief/nonbelief
were a simple matter of majority opinion, then why be a Christian? After
all, the VAST majority of people in the world are non-Christians. And
you're assuming that atheists like myself haven't taken that spiritual
journey, when many of us have, only to find a dead end down Christianity
Boulevard, Islam Avenue, Judaism Way and the other theist streets. I myself
was once a Christian, until I came to the conclusion that the Christian
concept of god differed with wat I had observed of the world.
Generally, only North Americans approach it from the stand
> of "what are the facts".
Not true. What about Europe, which has a higher percentage of non-theists?
Or the other places where there are a significant number of non-theists?
Most sensible people, however, know to start with
> "what does my heart and conscience tell me about the nature of 'things'".
> Being a believer is a spiritual thing, not a factual thing.
I don't agree with that. People who trust their hearts over their minds far
too often find themselves falling into trouble (for example, my first two
relationships; but that's a different cart of apples entirely).
>
> While learning facts may be helpful, remorse over sin, the questions about
> what is after death, and knowing that there is a God are the best way to
> start the journey.
Again, I disagree. How can someone have remorse over sin when they do not
believe in the concept of "sin"? My concept of right and wrong revolves
around whether or not my actions might harm myself or others, not about
whether a god that may or may not exist personally approves of such actions.
As far as what is after death, who knows? Even the Christians don't
completely agree on this issue. And in order to "know god", I require
physical evidence, and why not? If the question of god's existence is
merely a spiritual matter or a gut feeling, then which god should you
worship? And what if your gut feeling was wrong?
>
> The bottom line is that when you have asked God to forgive you of your
sins
> in Jesus' name and make you a new person, He actually does it and you can
> feel it.
Sorry to disagree with you, but as a Christian I did so, many times. I was
an ardent believer at the time, and I believed that there was a god who
would forgive my trespasses if I made a sincere request for forgiveness.
Despite my honest requests for forgiveness, though, I never "felt" saved. I
was always afraid that my salvation was a fraud, and that god would send me
to hell despite my best efforts to please him. Thankfully, reason saved me
from that endless cycle of guilt.
Feelings are facts though and that is why there can be no
> "logical, factual" discussion between an atheist and a Christian.
That's definitely not true. What about children who feel like they should
be treated as adults? Or those who believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter
Bunny, and other such myths? Are their feelings facts?
(snip)
> There is a continual "put down" to these kinds of answers and that is
> understandable because we are all different and no one has anyone else's
> unique experiences. But as a Christian to an Atheist I can tell you that
> there is a God because of how He changed me overnight. In an instant I
was
> changed so that I could no longer use foul language, no desire to sin
> sexually, and a great desire to know God and help suffering people. This
> change happened instantly and I know it was God. That is my experience,
it
> is probably not yours, but that is not to say your life is any less
> important to God.
I can certainly understand and respect the effect that religious belief can
have on a person, in both a positive and negative sense. Religion can
inspire people to surrender their lives to do good for others (i.e. Mother
Teresa), as it can also make them do mean-spirited and destructive things
(for example, the lunatic in Fort Worth who shot up a church full of
teenagers). Just keep in mind that the decision not to believe can also
affect a person's life for better or worse. In my case, it was definitely
for the better.
He does exist, he does desire your love, but He also
> desires most of all, for you to continue to have freewill.
>
> God does not want you to be "coerced" - He wants your freewill decision to
> be to choose good, and thus choose Him. The choice is, and always will be
> yours. The only thing that can block the way between you and God is sin
and
> pride.
This goes back to my post about free will, which I think was a pretty sound
argument for my disbelief in the concept of free will under the Christian
worldview. No disrespect intended, but I don't see the connection between
Christianity and free will at all.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37E33C7C...@yahoo.com...
> > Michael J Nash wrote:
> > > It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
> > > therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
> > i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
> > had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
> If you "couldn't read it all", then what the hell do you know about what I
> was trying to say?
I'm a speed reader and the bullcrap jumped out of the
page right off so I didn't bother giving
it any intense scrutiny.
> You can look in my post (if you have the time) to see what I said in support
> of my assertions. Please feel free to make a point-by-point refutation of
> my assertions if you feel they are in error.
nah, i won't bother.
anyone who considers God a rapist is a childish person.
go refute yourself.
noclu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
>> >Michael J Nash wrote:
>/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
>/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
>wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those
>/of
>/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
>/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
>/their god sends us to hell. This having been said, the question remains:
>/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
>/interpretation of the term?
>
>*this* is a load of bullcrap.
What is? That some Christians have made that claim (I've certainly heard
it before)? Or that the question remains of what exactly "free will" is?
>> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
>> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
>> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
>> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
>
>and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
>ergo, you have free will.
That is an interesting example, but I can't really address it because I
still believe that the question remains, what is free will? It would help
me to know what you think it means if you answer this question: If I hold
a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money or I will blow your
brains out, and you give me your money, did you give it to me of your own
free will?
noclu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>The question as to whether man has free will is rhetorical. When was the
>of free will differ. The American Heritage Dictionary defines free will as
>"the belief that man's choices are or can be voluntary". I have had plenty
>of involuntary choices throughout life from my parents, teachers, etc, but
>none from God.
How can you be sure of this? Although I know many Christians, the only
people I have heard of who claim direct communication with God are psychos
and TV evangelists. The others say that God gives them signs, or that they
feel him in their life, but the communication is always indirect. For
example, I knew a Christian in college who couldn't decide what to major
in, and prayed for guidance. When he flunked his chemistry exam, he felt
sure that God didn't want him to major in chemistry. Personally, I think
he just wasn't cut out for science, but how can you or I be sure that God
wasn't directing his path?
Don Kresch
that
>Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
>> >Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> >> Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
>> >> >Michael J Nash wrote:
>
>> >> >> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
>> >> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>
>> >> >i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
>> >> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
>
>> >> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
>
>> >/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their god's alleged
>> >/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god, they say,
>> >wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our volition. Those
>> >/of
>> >/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian god,
>> >/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but ourselves when
>> >/their god sends us to hell.
>
>> That's a lot of begged questions.
>
>fine, and if I say there is much crap in there
>evidently I have sufficient evidence to feel that way.
If you feel like committing a whole lot of fallacies, be my guest. It will
only weaken your position.
>
>> > This having been said, the question remains:
>> >/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
>> >/interpretation of the term?
>
>> Free will is having the real ability to make choices. To be of volitional
>> character. The xer interpretation, when coupled with an omniscient god as the
>> xer god is supposed to be, does not mesh with reality.
>
>Deuteronomy 30:19
>I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
>that I have set before you life and death, blessing
>and curse; therefore choose life, that you and
>your descendants may live,
IIRC, Deuteronomy was the book that was written almost on-the-spot to help
a certain king with his claims.
>apparently it is God's desire that we learn
>to make the proper choices that lead to happiness.
Except that to do that, we would have to know good from evil, and back in
Genesis, god forbade that.
That's contradictory.
>> >> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
>> >> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
>> >> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
>> >> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
>
>> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
>> Not if there is a god and it is omniscient.
>
>so, you say God directs a thief to steal?
God created him that way.
>if this so-called "omniscience" lends God
>a wisdom that man could never come upon in his short life span,
>then we owe it proper consideration.
So now theft is ok because god made the person that way?
Oh that's sick.
>but we are never forced to take instruction.
No, just sent to hell if we don't.
Sounds like "an offer you can't refuse".
>> >ergo, you have free will.
>
>> Again, if the god is omniscient and created everything,
>> choice and free will are illusory.
>
>but if God is concerned that you make proper choices,
You can't make any choices. It was all pre-determined.
>from your "no God" side, it can be claimed
>that all of man's choices are dictated by
>his desire to survive.
Desire to live, for life is the ultimate value and the value upon which
all other values depend.
>in God's view, choices made under this criterion
>are inherently hurtful and destructive.
Yeah, who wants to live.
Timothy Sutter
> "Chris L. Bel wrote:
> >The question as to whether man has free will is rhetorical. When was the
> >last time God stopped you from doing as you wished? Maybe our definitions
> >of free will differ. The American Heritage Dictionary defines free will as
> >"the belief that man's choices are or can be voluntary". I have had plenty
> >of involuntary choices throughout life from my parents, teachers, etc, but
> >none from God.
> How can you be sure of this? Although I know many Christians, the only
> people I have heard of who claim direct communication with God are psychos
> and TV evangelists.
God isn't a ouija board.
1 John 5:9-10
5:9
We believe human testimony; but God's testimony is much
stronger, and he has given this testimony about his Son.
5:10
So those who believe in the Son of God have this testimony in their
own heart; ..........
see where it says, "...have this testimony in their own heart"?
*this* is a form of direct communion with God.
see, not that you believe _only_ the human testimony,
but that God provides a testimony of God's own
...directly to your "heart"
to stay on topic,
this communion with God doesn't strip you of your free will.
not simply that people generally
surrender to God of their own volition.
the will is changed, and repaired.
mending the stony self centered heart
with a fleshy selfless heart.
the change is immediate _and_ a process
at the same time.
an immediate turn towards God
followed by a struggle to overcome the
"old nature" while you are still in possession of it.
just like a paraplegic learning to walk again.
they lead you along as much as you can at a time.
and you take possession of your will
as you walk in the way that leads to life.
and you will come directly into conflict
with the "old nature" over and over again.
as *you* take control of your will from your own
self centered nature with the aid and assistance
of God's direct witness.
Timothy Sutter
>Timothy Sutter
> >> Free will is having the real ability to make choices. To be of volitional
> >> character. The xer interpretation, when coupled with an omniscient god as the
> >> xer god is supposed to be, does not mesh with reality.
> >Deuteronomy 30:19
> >I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
> >that I have set before you life and death, blessing
> >and curse; therefore choose life, that you and
> >your descendants may live,
> IIRC, Deuteronomy was the book that was written almost on-the-spot to help
> a certain king with his claims.
irrelevant and immaterial speculation.
> >apparently it is God's desire that we learn
> >to make the proper choices that lead to happiness.
> Except that to do that, we would have to know good from evil, and back in
> Genesis, god forbade that.
> That's contradictory.
the choices were there in the garden.
God didn't shove "knowledge of good and evil" down adam's throat.
he told him quite clearly,
"that way leads to death."
and the tree of life was freely offered.
no contradiction.
Adam chose the way that leads to death.
and now God has to fix things because
death was not God's plan for man.
> >> >> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> >> >> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
> >> >> False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
> >> >> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
> >> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> >> Not if there is a god and it is omniscient.
> >so, you say God directs a thief to steal?
> God created him that way.
and God told him that "that way leads to death"
> >if this so-called "omniscience" lends God
> >a wisdom that man could never come upon in his short life span,
> >then we owe it proper consideration.
> So now theft is ok because god made the person that way?
"that way leads to death"
not ok, neither is it God's "fault"
> Oh that's sick.
play this straight or not at all.
> >but we are never forced to take instruction.
> No, just sent to hell if we don't.
"that way leads to death"
> Sounds like "an offer you can't refuse".
choose life.
> >> >ergo, you have free will.
> >> Again, if the god is omniscient and created everything,
> >> choice and free will are illusory.
> >but if God is concerned that you make proper choices,
> You can't make any choices. It was all pre-determined.
squirming. and evasive. and of your own invention.
tell people when you take stabs at your own effigies.
> >from your "no God" side, it can be claimed
> >that all of man's choices are dictated by
> >his desire to survive.
> Desire to live, for life is the ultimate value and the value upon which
> all other values depend.
"where do your wars arise? in that you desire to have
and you have not, and you kill to get what you do not have."
"beware the beast man, for he will turn your
home into a desolation, and his own."
the self centered will is the source of man's ills.
> >in God's view, choices made under this criterion
> >are inherently hurtful and destructive.
> Yeah, who wants to live.
"that way leads to death"
you are just as responsible for
bombings and assorted warfare as
those who carry out the duty.
oh, and "property is theft"
I'm sure you find fault with that.
Shakespeare's probably way over your fallacy.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> >ergo, you have free will.
> That is an interesting example, but I can't really address it because I
> still believe that the question remains, what is free will?
apparently, free will is something of the sort;
to make decisions that allow further decision making.
and once you are found in a consequence that
requires nor enables no further decisions,
you are no longer operating under will but ritual.
etc.
> It would help
> me to know what you think it means if you answer this question: If I hold
> a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money or I will blow your
> brains out, and you give me your money, did you give it to me of your own
> free will?
so you present me with a choice.
"do this and live."
"do this and die."
and this choice i can make with
no consideration given to your
provision of "forced" circumstances.
nor any inherent "right" you may have
to provide me with such a choice.
nor any regard to your exercise of free will either.
that's called an "abstraction"
still my choice.
you are the slave of the consequences.
why make choices that will make you
beholden to a poor set of consequences?
<snip my own extended yammering>
CyberAl36
>>
>> > It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free will" are,
>> > therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>>
>> i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
>> had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
>
>was trying to say?
>
>
>Since you're just too busy to read my post, here's a brief summary:
>1) Many (if not most) Christians claim that God gave all humans free will,
>and that the unsaved deserve to go to hell when they die because it was
>their decision not to worship Christ.
>2) Free will involves the ability to make an informed choice.
>by the fear of retaliation for making the "wrong" choice.
>4) The Christian god, if he exists, has not provided his humans subjects
>with enough information to verify his alleged existence, therefore we as
>humans are incapable of making an informed decision about whether or not to
>worship him.
>5) The alleged negative consequences of choosing not to worship the
>Christian god (if he exists) are dire enough to influence a person's
>decision whether or not to worship that god, if they believe that he exists
>and is capable of carrying out the threat of eternal damnation for
>non-believers.
>6) Because we as humans cannot make an informed decision to worship the
>Christian god, and because the alleged negative consequences of apostasy
>have the potential of influencing a person's decision to worship, free will
>does not exist under the Christian worldview.
Michael J Nash
> > If you "couldn't read it all", then what the hell do you know about what
I
> > was trying to say?
>
> I'm a speed reader and the bullcrap jumped out of the
> page right off so I didn't bother giving
> it any intense scrutiny.
That or you're just another lazy christbot who doesn't want to be confronted
with anything that doesn't conform with his beliefs.
>
> > You can look in my post (if you have the time) to see what I said in
support
> > of my assertions. Please feel free to make a point-by-point refutation
of
> > my assertions if you feel they are in error.
>
> nah, i won't bother.
Of course not, because you're a coward with no rational basis for his
beliefs.
>
> anyone who considers God a rapist is a childish person.
>
Who said that your god was a rapist, dickwipe? For that matter, who said
your god even exists? All I'm saying, if you would take the time to look,
is that there is no such thing as free will in the Christian worldview.
Your fear of confronting my arguments is testament to the lack of free will
in the Christian faith. So scared of your nonexistent god that you don't
even want to read my post? How pathetic! And how typical.
CyberAl36
Supreme Patriarch
>
> I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to
> his little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who in
> his ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you
> didn't create yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the
> world by God and as of late explanations have come from many
> scientists who accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory
> just like the story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than
> a theory).
Let's have a little "truth" in advertising here. Yes, there are
scientists who believe in God the Creator, but these scientists also
accept evolution. They regard the processes as inherently linked.
No legitimate scientist - and a legitimate scientist is one who accepts
the scientific method as the way to truth - denies the finding of
science. If he has faith, he has no need to overturn scientific
findings. He sees the theories of science as the way his God chooses to
work.
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are
> there still apes on the planet?
If you understood the theory of evolution, which you clearly don't, then
you would know that the theory of evolution DOES NOT REQUIRE OR SUGGEST
that man evolved from apes. The theory of evolution posits that we have
a common ancestor.
> Snip Snip - no interest in reprinting the metaphysical stuff here.
Believe your religion all you want, but the basic beliefs of
Christianity do no require you to deny science. What you are basing
your denial of science on is the LITERAL interpretation of a very old
book which has numerous factual mistakes in it.
A figurative and symbolic interpretation of the same book leaves
Christian beliefs and practices intact.
And I'm not trying to convert you to agnosticism or atheism with this
criticism. Please stay a Christian. It takes the ability of
independent thought to be agnostic or atheist.
Sincerely
John Tyrrell
--
The Most Reverend Doctor John Tyrrell
Supreme Patriarch & Founder
The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic
http://agnostic.religion.webjump.com/
The International University of Nescience
http://members.tripod.com/~supremepatriarch/
Offering free online ordination and "degree" certificates.
Timothy Sutter
> > > If you "couldn't read it all", then what the hell do
> > > you know about what I
> > > was trying to say?
> > I'm a speed reader and the bullcrap jumped out of the
> > page right off so I didn't bother giving
> > it any intense scrutiny.
> That or you're just another lazy christbot who doesn't want to be confronted
> with anything that doesn't conform with his beliefs.
which you failed to do.
you "confronted me" with nothing but
the childish musings of a crybaby.
I have supplied ample structure in this thread.
now you may shout at the walls if you so desire.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >Luke Kraemer wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> >> >ergo, you have free will.
> >> Does your god already know if you're going to murder someone tomorrow
> >> or if someone is going to murder you?
> >Jeremiah 32:35
> >They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
> >son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
> >Molech, though I did not command them,
> > nor did it enter into my mind,
> So god didn't know they were going to do this? But I thought god
> always made perfect predictions about the future,
obviously you thought incorrectly, thus my initial
statement that this was "bullcrap" stands.
> how did he not know
> this was going to happen? Do your fellow christians know this is what
> you believe, that god was caught unawares? I'd stay inside during
> lightning storms if I were you, underestimating your deity like that.
you don't care about understanding it,
just mocking what you don't understand.
big deal.
> >that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
> >_________________________________________________________
> Bet god sure was surprised, right?
no, God hoped for better,
but wasn't "shocked" by worse.
> So I guess that means you're not going to answer my questions, that
> is, does god already know if you are going to commit murder tomorrow?
> Maybe if you could share with us your definition of "omniscience" that
> would help. And don't forget "free will".
your question has been answered.
now you're just playing games.
enjoy yourself.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >I'm a speed reader and the bullcrap jumped out of the
> >page right off so I didn't bother giving
> >it any intense scrutiny.
> That must be some speed reading course you took. You're like the guy in
> the joke who read War and Peace in 30 minutes, and said it was something
> about Russia.
you just want me to write a reply so
you can pin it up on your fridge.
enough of this hero worship.
you want me to return the sort of "love" you've
become accustomed to from your parents,
but I don't play that way.
if you enjoy being debased, find a
friend that will comply with your wishes.
but don't ask me to engage in that.
Michael J Nash
>and that the unsaved deserve to go to hell when they die because it was
>their decision not to worship Christ.
You have to know who Jesus Christ is before you can freely give yourself
over to him and worship him as the God of Creation. There are too many who
have been disappointed by the Bible because they only see it from a worldly
point of view.
exists.
>2) Free will involves the ability to make an informed choice.
Yes, freewill involves being able to make an informed choice, yet in the
'60's that choice was interupted by the atheists who did not want our
children to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior therefore forbidding them
to be able to make an informed choice.
done anything that prevents a Christian from proselytizing except in an
official setting where such behavior is constitutionally prohibited out of a
sense of fairness to non-Christians. Other than that, the only thing that
has been done to hinder the conversion of people to Christianity has been
its refutation by scientific progress.
>3) Free will involves the ability to make a choice that is not influenced
>by the fear of retaliation for making the "wrong" choice.
Yes, and Christians have been living by the fear of lawsuits, expulsion from
schools, and the fear of retaliation for making the decision to follow
Christ in this world and living a new life with him at the helm of our
lives. Many people, Christian or not, follow what is "morally right" rather
than "politically correct".
violate the rights of others. And please don't use the "politically
correct" line, either; it's much more PC these days to be a Christian than
it is to be a nonbeliever. If you don't believe me, see what happens to the
first practicing Satanist who stands up at a public ceremony and begins
praying to Satan. Every Christian in attendance would lynch the person on
the spot, and you know it! In any event, you missed my point about the fear
of retaliation for making the "wrong" choice. I was referring to those who
believe they will go to hell for not worshipping the Christian god. It's
kind of hard for them to exercise free will when they fear eternal torture
for doing so.
>4) The Christian god, if he exists, has not provided his humans subjects
>with enough information to verify his alleged existence, therefore we as
>humans are incapable of making an informed decision about whether or not to
>worship him.
The God of Creation does exist, and does provide enough information to
verify his existence. It has been proven more and more each year as
scientists find new reasons to believe that Creation and God does exists and
has existed from the very beginning. God gave mankind a choice from the
very beginning. It was mankind that made the choice to disavow God and live
a life of sin.
the 6,000 year old universe, the firmament of water, the flood, and the
geocentric view of the universe. Most Christians have resorted to
portraying the bible's statements as figurative, because they know it
doesn't mesh with current scientific knowledge. This is what I was
referring to--the fact that, in order to believe in the Christian god, a
person has to ignore tons of scientific evidence and take a blind leap of
faith, one that would be just as easy to take for any other religion in
existence.
>5) The alleged negative consequences of choosing not to worship the
>Christian god (if he exists) are dire enough to influence a person's
>decision whether or not to worship that god, if they believe that he exists
>and is capable of carrying out the threat of eternal damnation for
>non-believers.
God is our heavenly Father. He is the one we look up to in making the
important decisions in our lives. Without him to help make the right choice
we already have created that threat of eternal damnation.
humans as opposed to the Christian god, though for entirely different
reasons. However, if the Christians are right, it is god who has the
physical power to send a person to hell. Therefore, aperson who believed in
the Christian god and his ability to damn would be hard pressed not to
conform with that god's wishes, whether he loved that god or not.
>6) Because we as humans cannot make an informed decision to worship the
>Christian god, and because the alleged negative consequences of apostasy
>have the potential of influencing a person's decision to worship, free will
>does not exist under the Christian worldview.
Freewill does exists under God's point of view. It is mankind who
persecutes others for their ways and beliefs. Look at all the prejudices,
injustices, and bigotry that has gone on in our American heritage alone.
Many claimed to do these things in the name of Christ, but it was Christ who
taught us to "love our neighbors as ourselves". Man torments and persecutes
others to the point of indecision or fear, not God.
to hell.
I have broken down each point you listed and gave you an explanation. Thank
you for the opportunity to explain my point of view.
in fact ignored what I was trying to say. The existence of the Christian
god is not self-evident, and the Christian belief in eternal damnation for
nonbelievers is undeniable, therefore there is no free will in the Christian
worldview.
CyberAl36 <Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:O0GfyDwA$GA.239@cpmsnbbsa03...
I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to his little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who in his ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't create yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the world by God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory).
<<<I'm sure there are scientists out there who happen to be Christians, who have tried to shoehorn current scientific knowledge to fit their beliefs. When you argue that the bible is meant to be figurative, you can make pretty much anything conform with it, however loosely. It also helps if you distort the scientific record (see the rantings of John Boatwright). But the scientific community in general supports an interpretation of current scientific knowlege which completely refutes a literal interpretation of the bible's creation story, as well as the worldwide flood and other biblical myths.
Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there still apes on the planet?
<<<Why would evolution require apes to die off after the evolutionary emergence of humans?
If God did not allow freewill to accept him or not to accept him, then why does he not just go on and destroy the earth and all of mankind with it?
<<<According to the book of Revelation, that's exactly what he intends to do at some point. If you believe what the book says, anyway...
Interesting questions I have to admit. God does not do this because he is a loving God who offered his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. To wait patiently while we decide whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not.
<<<I don't see how condemning nonbelievers to eternal damnation implies patience and love. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this one.
To every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to turn to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so.
<<<I've never understood why the Christian god requires blood sacrifice in exchange for salvation. Sounds pretty stone-age to me...
The consequences of sin IS death, but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our sins, was buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father which is in heaven. No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not Mohammad, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the grave.
<<<You obviously don't understand a lot about how these religions work, or else you wouldn't be making such a ludicrous statement. And what about Zoroastrianism?
God is in control from the very creation of this world until his Son comes back to claim his kingdom for all eternity. There is a better day coming despite the bleak outlook we have in our society today. Even in this day and age of technology where we now live under the fear of the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God is in control. All one has to do is to trust in him with sincerity and his heart. "Let go, and let God". "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God...." Romans 8:28.
<<<Sorry, pal, but I just don't see it happening.
Luke Kraemer
>Luke Kraemer wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
>> >ergo, you have free will.
>
>> Does your god already know if you're going to murder someone tomorrow
>> or if someone is going to murder you?
>
>Jeremiah 32:35
>They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
>son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
>Molech, though I did not command them,
>
> nor did it enter into my mind,
So god didn't know they were going to do this? But I thought god
always made perfect predictions about the future, how did he not know
this was going to happen? Do your fellow christians know this is what
you believe, that god was caught unawares? I'd stay inside during
lightning storms if I were you, underestimating your deity like that.
>that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
>_________________________________________________________
Bet god sure was surprised, right?
>try to understand what people mean when
>they even use the word "omniscience".
Gee, I thought a standard dictionary definition would do. Mine, a
1981 Webster's, defines "omniscience" as, "The faculty of knowing
everything; knowledge of all things; infinitely knowing." Has the
definition changed in 18 years? Let's see your definition, and, while
you're at it, include your definition of "free will" which you've
still avoided.
>God has a full understanding of the way things work.
>
>but God did not invent all of the thoughts that enter into a man's mind.
I didn't say that. All I want to know is whether god already knows
what you're going to do tomorrow, hmmmm? I don't care if YOU know or
not, just whether god knows this.
>God has that attitude that enbles God to make choices.
Huh?
>man needs to be trained in that attitude.
A 2x4 upside the head, a few jolts of electricty, or skip the niceties
and go straight to torture?
>and, evidently, *this* is the intent of God.
A bit presumptious. Say, weren't you the guy who predicted the
rapture a couple days ago? No, wait, that was someone else who knew
god's intent.
>that we should learn to use our freedom in such
>a manner that it bears fruit and not destruction.
In other words, love me or else, but hey, you're free to choose.
>do you need further clarification?
So I guess that means you're not going to answer my questions, that
is, does god already know if you are going to commit murder tomorrow?
Maybe if you could share with us your definition of "omniscience" that
would help. And don't forget "free will".
And if you want to go for the bonus points: How is loaning your son
for 33 human years (no time at all for a god don't you think) only to
have him return home for eternity, a meaningful enough sacrifice to
forgive all sins? Sounds like sinning isn't all that bad. And
besides, they still managed to talk to each other every day. Since
that was before the AT&T breakup, those bills most have been
horrendous. Now maybe if god had to give up something a little more
worthwhile, say, sending Jesus to hell for eternity, that might cover
some of those really bad sins. Or to go for the whole ball of wax,
make Jesus cease to exist, now that would be some sacrifice. Or maybe
not, humans have had to make that sacrifice all the time, not knowing
for sure what was going to happen. At least god and his son knew what
was going to happen, or did they? You've confused me with which
magical powers your deities have as opposed to the powers that other
christians believe their god and Jesus have.
Luke
noclu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I'm a speed reader and the bullcrap jumped out of the
>page right off so I didn't bother giving
>it any intense scrutiny.
>
>> of my assertions. Please feel free to make a point-by-point refutation of
>> my assertions if you feel they are in error.
>
>nah, i won't bother.
>
That must be some speed reading course you took. You're like the guy in
LeNakiz
CyberAl36 wrote:
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there
> still apes on the planet?
> No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not Mohammad,
> nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the grave.
Again, Man did not evolve from apes. Please take the time to educate yourself:
go to your nearest library and take out a book on evolution. We and apes are
cousins, that is, we descend from the same ancestor. Apes took a different
branching to homo-sapiens, hence we share very similar
characteristics.
So chistianity is the true religion, and all the others are bull, right? Well,
if all the other religions you mention here say the same thing, which one is
lying? All of them, none of them?
Next time THINK before you post your utter garbage!
--
"A thiest is like a blind man in a dark room, searching for a black
cat that isn't there... and finding it!"
...Love Always...
LeNakiz
Timothy Sutter
> Hi
> CyberAl36 wrote:
> > Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there
> > still apes on the planet?
> > No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not Mohammad,
> > nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the grave.
> Again, Man did not evolve from apes. Please take the time to educate yourself:
> go to your nearest library and take out a book on evolution. We and apes are
> cousins, that is, we descend from the same ancestor. Apes took a different
> branching to homo-sapiens, hence we share very similar
> characteristics.
"descend" is a strange word to employ here.
because you are trying to convice people
that a creature much like a squirrel
_enlarged_ its genome thus developing
brand new features of which no progenitor
was in possession.
and this, by accident.
*this* is magic.
and it is not a descent.
there is _nothing_ on the galapagos that
even begin to agree with such a notion.
this is all magical.
and we *hate* magical explanations.
Okamura
<tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>and we *hate* magical explanations.
Cool. I never knew that either of us had to.
Okamura
"When you have got at the idea, forget about the words." - Chuang-Tzu.
LeNakiz
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> "descend" is a strange word to employ here.
> because you are trying to convice people
> that a creature much like a squirrel
> _enlarged_ its genome thus developing
> brand new features of which no progenitor
> was in possession.
Sorry then, I used the wrong word. Evolved would be more appropriate. I am not
trying to convince anyone.
Like I said, go to a library and get a book on evolution. I am not
an expert on the subject, but I do understand the priciples behind it.
ciao!
Burundanga
Anyway, he created you the way you are... He gave you all the tools needed to sin.
The one who is in control takes all responsability.
SIN ALL YOU WANT... He is to be blamed for everything!
Burundanga... the theologist
David G Dick
Timothy Sutter wrote in message <37E5E999...@yahoo.com>...
>and we *hate* magical explanations.
Let me see...
God said, let there be a universe from nothing, and *poof*, there it was.
Sounds pretty magical to me. Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
process of mutation.
--
David G Dick
"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
maff91
<Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding
> to his little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who
> in his ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that
>you didn't create yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the
>world by God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists
>who accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the
>story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory).
Why don't you learn about science and evolutionary biology?
http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there
>still apes on the planet? If God did not allow freewill to accept him or not
If many Europeans migrated from Europe to US, why are there still many
Europeans?
>to accept him, then why does he not just go on and destroy the earth and
>all of mankind with it? Interesting questions I have to admit. God does not
>do this because he is a loving God who offered his Son as a sacrifice for our
>sins. To wait patiently while we decide whether or not to accept his Son Jesus
>as Lord and Savior or not. To every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus
>payed the price for our sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently
>for us to turn to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so. The consequences
>of sin IS death, but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our sins, was
>buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father which is in heaven.
>No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not Mohammad, nor
>Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in
>the grave.
God didn't help the Bible Belt when slavery and segregation was
practiced based on the Bible.
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
<http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525>
<http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Slavery/>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Segregation/>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Lynching/>
> God is in control from the very creation of this world until his Son comes back
>to claim his kingdom for all eternity. There is a better day coming despite the bleak
>outlook we have in our society today. Even in this day and age of technology
>where we now live under the fear of the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God is in control.
>All one has to do is to trust in him with sincerity and his heart. "Let go, and let God".
>"We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God...."
>Romans 8:28.
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
--
L.P.#0000000001
A. O'Reilly
enlightened us with...
> A Christian believes in the Creation of the world by =
> God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who =
> accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the =
> story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory).
Your obvious misunderstanding of evolution's factuality aside, please
tell us all about these "many scientists" who accept Creation as detailed
in the Bible. Not that an argument from authority would mean anything,
but it'd still be nice.
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
> there still apes on the planet?
Ummm...because evolution does not necessarily result in the previous
species dying out? Why would it? If they had to compete for the same
resources, then it might - but if it changed the specific resources
needed it wouldn't.
> If God did not allow freewill to accept =
> him or not to accept him, then why does he not just go on and destroy =
> the earth and all of mankind with it?
Like he supposedly did in the flood?
Anyway, until you show your god exists, your question is meaningless.
> No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a =
> victory. Not Mohammad, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still =
> in the grave. =20
Typical Christian arrogance -- I suggest you read the Freedom From
Religion Foundation's non-tract called "Cookie Cutter Christ" I belive --
it will detail many of the world mythologies which involve a savior dying
and rising from the dead. The Christian myth is anything but original.
(Hint: The Golden Rule didn't start with the Christians either)
<snip the rest of the mythology-based preachiness>
--
A. O'Reilly Atheist #1153
==============================================
I feel my body weakened by the years,
As people turn to gods of cruel design.
Is it that they fear the pain of death?
Or could it be they fear the joy of life?
Dux Gregis
> LeNakiz wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> > CyberAl36 wrote:
>
there
> > > still apes on the planet?
Mohammad,
> > > nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the grave.
>
yourself:
> > go to your nearest library and take out a book on evolution. We and
apes are
> > cousins, that is, we descend from the same ancestor. Apes took a
different
> > branching to homo-sapiens, hence we share very similar
> > characteristics.
>
>
If you look at living organisms hierarchically it makes perfect sense. Both
humans and apes are a subclass of whatever primates we both evolved from.
>
> because you are trying to convice people
> that a creature much like a squirrel
> _enlarged_ its genome thus developing
> brand new features of which no progenitor
> was in possession.
The way I understand is that the genome is the same size in all organisms
and only the coding is different: greater complexity in higher organisms.
Of course this didn't have to be the case, but I'm not a bioligist so I
can't really tell you why it is.
>
> and this, by accident.
Not necessarily by accident: specific traits did not have to evolve, but
newer traits in general did. As with all complex systems, there are
underlying patterns that create a macro-level order; this order will always
be present even if the specific elements are not.
>
> *this* is magic.
Magic if you say humans had to evolve. Completely expected if you say that
something highly complex and intelligent had to evolve.
>
> and it is not a descent.
>
> there is _nothing_ on the galapagos that
> even begin to agree with such a notion.
There's evidence everywhere (and very lacking in intelligent design I'm
sorry to point out). Try the faqs at www.talkorgins.org
>
> this is all magical.
noclu...@hotmail.com
>even begin to agree with such a notion.
I see you've been speed reading again. Whizzed through Darwin in ten
minutes and concluded that all life sprang from the Galapagos. No wonder
you got nothing from the FAQs.
ath...@home.com
<Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
You Christians are constantly ranting on and on about your God being
in control.
How about a list of the things he is in control of?
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF02D7.CDF56960
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to his =
>little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who in his =
>ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't =
>create yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the world by =
>God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who =
>accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the =
>story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory). =20
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
>there still apes on the planet? If God did not allow freewill to accept =
>him or not to accept him, then why does he not just go on and destroy =
>the earth and all of mankind with it? Interesting questions I have to =
>admit. God does not do this because he is a loving God who offered his =
>Son as a sacrifice for our sins. To wait patiently while we decide =
>whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To =
>every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our =
>sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to turn =
>to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so. The consequences of =
>sin IS death, but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our =
>sins, was buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father =
>which is in heaven. No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a =
>victory. Not Mohammad, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still =
>in the grave. =20
> God is in control from the very creation of this world until his =
>Son comes back to claim his kingdom for all eternity. There is a better =
>day coming despite the bleak outlook we have in our society today. Even =
>in this day and age of technology where we now live under the fear of =
>the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God is in control. All one has to do is =
>to trust in him with sincerity and his heart. "Let go, and let God". =
>"We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those =
>who love God...." Romans 8:28. =20
>
>------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF02D7.CDF56960
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#008080=20
>face=3D"Times New Roman"> I =
>got an email=20
>message from Michael Nash after responding to his little inquiry. =
>My=20
>response was met rather harshly by him who in his ultimate "I know=20
>all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't create=20
>yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the world =
>by God=20
>and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who accept =
>the=20
>Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the story of=20
>evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory). =
></FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#008080 face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT =
>color=3D#000000=20
>size=3D2> <FONT =
>color=3D#008080=20
>face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>Let me ask you this. If man =
>evolved from=20
>apes, then why are there still apes on the planet? If God did not =
>allow=20
>freewill to accept him or not to accept him, then why does he not just =
>go on and=20
>destroy the earth and all of mankind with it? Interesting =
>questions I have=20
>to admit. God does not do this because he is a loving God who =
>offered his=20
>Son as a sacrifice for our sins. To wait patiently while we decide =
>
>whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or =
>not. To=20
>every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the =
>price for=20
>our sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to =
>turn to=20
>him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so. The consequences =
>of sin IS=20
>death, but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our sins, was =
>buried,=20
>and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father which is in =
>heaven. =20
>No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not =
>Mohammad,=20
>nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the grave. =20
></FONT></FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><FONT color=3D#008080 face=3D"Times =
>New Roman"=20
>size=3D3> God is in control =
>from the=20
>very creation of this world until his Son comes back to claim his =
>kingdom for=20
>all eternity. There is a better day coming despite the bleak =
>outlook we=20
>have in our society today. Even in this day and age of technology =
>where we=20
>now live under the fear of the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God =
>is in=20
>control. All one has to do is to trust in him with sincerity and =
>his=20
>heart. "Let go, and let God". "We know that =
>God=20
>causes all things to work together for good to those who love=20
>God...." Romans 8:28. =
></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF02D7.CDF56960--
>
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote in message...
> > LeNakiz wrote:
> > > branching to homo-sapiens, hence we share very similar
> > > characteristics.
> > "descend" is a strange word to employ here.
> If you look at living organisms hierarchically it makes perfect sense. Both
> humans and apes are a subclass of whatever primates we both evolved from.
nonsense, vertebrates don't "descend" from invertebrates.
the spine is a "new" apparatus that
a jelly fish does not possess.
and the jelly fish doesn't have
as much genetic material as a simple vertebrate.
are you trying to say that human
beings "descended" from bacteria?
bacteria don't have 46 chromosomes.
> > because you are trying to convice people
> > that a creature much like a squirrel
> > _enlarged_ its genome thus developing
> > brand new features of which no progenitor
> > was in possession.
> The way I understand is that the genome is the same size in all organisms
> and only the coding is different: greater complexity in higher organisms.
> Of course this didn't have to be the case, but I'm not a bioligist so I
> can't really tell you why it is.
nope. not even close. someone has been brushing things under the rug.
a jelly fish does not have the same number of chromosomes as a shark.
in fact, what you have said here is exactly incorrect.
"lower forms" have less genetic material.
now you may begin to see why it's magic.
> > and this, by accident.
> Not necessarily by accident: specific traits did not have to evolve, but
> newer traits in general did. As with all complex systems, there are
> underlying patterns that create a macro-level order; this order will always
> be present even if the specific elements are not.
uh uh. no squirrel has a cerebral cortex.
this is a "new" developement.
worms don't have legs.
> > *this* is magic.
> Magic if you say humans had to evolve. Completely expected if you say that
> something highly complex and intelligent had to evolve.
magic if you say that a cancer will manifest itself
in a small population of critters simultaneously,
and produce a new apparatus.
(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
aaa ---> aga mutation
(useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
|-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
this stretch here will be unregulated, and therefore
reproduce itself without regulation as a cancer.
why unregulated?
because this stretch is new to the organism.
and whether you know this or not, you are asking
the genome to extend and grow *and* mutate into
something that the critters need.
asking for worms to sprout legs in magic.
never in 10 trillion years.
> > and it is not a descent.
> > there is _nothing_ on the galapagos that
> > even begin to agree with such a notion.
> There's evidence everywhere (and very lacking in intelligent design I'm
> sorry to point out). Try the faqs at www.talkorgins.org
a FAQ not evidence.
horticulture is human design.
there is no evidence that jelly fish grew a backbone.
taxonomy is also not evidence for this process.
Timothy Sutter
> Hi
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > "descend" is a strange word to employ here.
> > because you are trying to convice people
> > that a creature much like a squirrel
> > _enlarged_ its genome thus developing
> > brand new features of which no progenitor
> > was in possession.
> Sorry then, I used the wrong word. Evolved would be more appropriate. I am not
> trying to convince anyone.
> Like I said, go to a library and get a book on evolution. I am not
> an expert on the subject, but I do understand the priciples behind it.
do you really?
I think if you did, you'd see
that it is a magical explanation.
that a critter with 2 chromosomes will
slowly _add_ genetic material becoming
a critter with 4 chromosomes.
and not only add genetic material, but
add it in such a way that a useful
apparatus is formed.
we're talking about adding genes.
not *just* rearranging genes that
already exist on the critters.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >and we *hate* magical explanations.
> Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
> process of mutation.
here is a simple aaa --> aga mutation.
aaa is the "stop" codon. doesn't code for anything.
(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
aaa ---> aga mutation
(useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
|-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
this stretch here will be unregulated, and therefore
reproduce itself without regulation as a cancer.
without regard to asking for an _extension_ in strand length,
you are asking for an unregulated "cancer"
to magically form a new apparatus.
so, you are asking a jelly fish to sprout a backbone,
by a very amazing sequence of magical events.
first extending it's strand length, from material
previously on its dna, followed by that new strand
mutating to form _useful_ new apparati.
oh, and provide viable offspring while this process is underway.
all the while, realizing that any "new" code will be unregulated.
and this means that dna prduces its function
in reaction to necessity.
your body is not continuously producing stomach acid.
that mechanism shuts on and off according to need.
well, this "new" stranding you propose,
will have no such regulation.
it will be a cancer.
magic, see.
conscious design.
and conscious design beyond any scope we can even imagine.
Timothy Sutter
> LeNakiz wrote:
> > Hi
oh, Hi.
Timothy Sutter
> >even begin to agree with such a notion.
> I see you've been speed reading again. Whizzed through Darwin in ten
> minutes and concluded that all life sprang from the Galapagos.
evidence, dear child, evidence.
pointing to a process that resembles dog breeding,
and then making the tremendous leap
and claiming it happened in reverse.
*that* is intellectual "sleight of hand" not _even_ magic.
you see, the traits on the galapagos finches were already in place.
no new traits were created, simply a variety with
large beaks survived a drought over a
variety with small beaks.
this is nothing more than dog breeding.
but to then claim that this process can
occur in reverse is simply not true nor observed.
because we are no longer asking for speciation via
rearrangement of pre-existant genetic material, but
are now begging that genetic material be added and added
in a useful response to an environmental stressor.
*that* would be magic.
eric
-----Original Message-----
From: eric <ejle...@Oakland.edu>
To: eric lenderman <e.len...@french-rogers.com>
Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 2:13 PM
Subject: God is in control!! (fwd)
I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to his
little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who in his
ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't
create yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you'll sit here and claim that you know all, in the exact same way
that you accuse him of acting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Christian believes in the Creation of the world by God and as of late
explanations have come from many scientists who accept the Creation story
as more and more of a theory just like the story of evolution(which in
itself is nothing more than a theory).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the two stories is that the creation story is a
myth, and the evolution theory is just a theory. Neither can be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. One requires faith in a book that may have been
edited and changed by rich nobles and priests who were in power over the
last 2000 years, the other requires faith in modern scientists. Take your
pick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there
still apes on the planet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read Darwin's Origin of the Species, you'll find that Darwin does
not propose that man evolved from apes. He says that man and apes evolved
from a common ancestor; not necessarily an ape, but a being which had
qualities and characteristics of both modern and ancient human beings and
modern and ancient apes. Why is it so hard for Christians to accept the
fact that their God may well be a god of science that designed evolution?
I'm not saying that that's definitely how it happened, because, like you,
I don't know for sure. But, it makes more since to hash this stuff out and
consider all the possibilities than to take the words of an ancient book
as the absolute truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God did not allow freewill to accept him or not to accept him, then
why does he not just go on and destroy the earth and all of mankind with
it? Interesting questions I have to admit. God does not do this because
he is a loving God who offered his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A loving God would certainly not damn his children to hell for eternity -
no matter what they did wrong. While we're on the subject, consider this:
Every torture mentioned in the bible regarding eternal damnation involves
human pain - fire, gnashing of teeth, wailing, etc. - but what does that
really do to your soul? The body can only endure so much pain before it
gives up and dies. These particular bible passages, it seems to me, were
written by church nobles to scare people into devoting themselves to their
church, so the priests could collect their ten percent. Scare the money
out of 'em!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To wait patiently while we decide whether or not to accept his Son
Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To every decision there is a price to
pay. Jesus payed the price for our sins over two-thousand years ago and
now waits patiently for us to turn to him without coercion, or arm
twisting to do so. The consequences of sin IS death,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the consequences of sin is death, then human beings have no real free
will; we have no real choice in the matter. It's like saying to your son,
"Son, you can live your life however you choose, but if you don't live it
according to my terms, I'll kill you." Would you say that to someone you
love? I hope not. Yet, Christians love this type of God. That's puzzling,
at best.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our sins, was buried,
and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father which is in heaven.
No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Hooray for Jesus. He gets the first seed, which means he'll probably
get a bye in the first round. What the hell is your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Mohammad, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in the
grave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you're demeaning the value of other religions to affirm
your own belief. Jesus Christ, if he existed and was as loving and
selfless as the Bible says he was, certainly doesn't need you to stick up
for him. He doesn't need a cheerleader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is in control from the very creation of this world until his
Son comes back to claim his kingdom for all eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're missing the point. According to YOUR bible, God gave human beings
free will, which means that humans are in control of this world. If you
think that isn't true, you're denying that your God gave you free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a better day coming despite the bleak outlook we have in our
society today. Even in this day and age of technology where we now live
under the fear of the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God is in control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No he isn't. He's letting us have free will, which is why the world is how
it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All one has to do is to trust in him with sincerity and his heart. "Let
go, and let God".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't "Let God." He won't do squat. When you understand that, you'll
understand free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Patriarch
Replying to this and similar posts by Mr. Sutter:
What these all posts seem to say is "I will refer to a lot of words from
biology that I don't really understand because they aren't in the bible
to disprove the findings of biology."
Mr. Sutter:
If you believe in the literal truth of the bible it is not just biology
and evolution you don't believe in.
You don't accept among many other sciences geology, mathematics,
genetics, archeology, physics and astrophysics. (And I'm sure other
You don't accept astronomy, though you might accept astrology because
that has the sun and stars in imaginary orbits about the earth.
You don't accept cosmology, though thanks to the Tammy-Faye Mascara
Theorem, you can accept cosmetology as a science that is in accord with
the bible.
Now, if you want to accept the metaphorical truth of the bible, then all
of modern knowledge becomes available to you - without challenging your
belief in God. Until then, you are in the middle ages.
John Tyrrell
PS - and if anyone happens to find the Tammy-Faye joke distasteful - I'm
soooooo sorry.
--
Tim Schulz
> David G Dick wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > >and we *hate* magical explanations.
>
> > Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
> > process of mutation.
>
> here is a simple aaa --> aga mutation.
>
> aaa is the "stop" codon. doesn't code for anything.
Actually, AAA is lysine. UAA, UAG, and UGA are the stop codons.
> (useful code)-aaa-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
>
> aaa ---> aga mutation
>
> (useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
>
> |-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
>
> this stretch here will be unregulated, and therefore
> reproduce itself without regulation as a cancer.
Say WHAT? Cancer is caused when one of a specific subset of genes
(dealing with control over cell proliferation; p53 being a primary
culprit) is rendered nonfunctional by mutation.
You're talking about codons, which deals with translation of RNA to DNA.
At worst, to my knowledge, the above situation might result in a protein
with a few extra amino acids at the end, but would probably otherwise
function identically to the wild type protein.
> without regard to asking for an _extension_ in strand length,
>
> you are asking for an unregulated "cancer"
> to magically form a new apparatus.
What is this gobbledygook you're spouting, anyway? It bears little to no
relationship to biology. The demands you're placing on evolution have no
basis in reality. MOST POINT MUTATIONS (that is, a change in a single
amino acid) DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Known genetic events such as gene duplication and exon shuffling allow
more genetic material to be added to the genome. The duplicated gene can
mutate into a new form without really adversely affecting the organism (as
long as one of the genes retains its function). It's the reason we have
"families" of closely related genes, and why many useful domains are
highly conserved and found combined with other proteins.
> so, you are asking a jelly fish to sprout a backbone,
> by a very amazing sequence of magical events.
Lightning must seem very "magical" to someone completely ignorant of
electricity, who would need to unnecessarily postulate a god to explain
that which is adequately explained by nature, but those of us willing to
move out of the dark ages know better.
> first extending it's strand length, from material
> previously on its dna, followed by that new strand
> mutating to form _useful_ new apparati.
Well, I'm very much afraid that that is all well within the realm of
probability, based on what we know the genome to be capable of. And "new"
apparati are quite frequently "old" apparati, jury-rigged to a new
function. That's how evolution works. The notochord is, IIRC, basically
epithelial tissue wrapped into a tube, as a likely result of a quirk of
development. There's your "jellyfish backbone" right there.
> oh, and provide viable offspring while this process is underway.
I'd be happy to!
> all the while, realizing that any "new" code will be unregulated.
Rubbish, as I showed above.
> and this means that dna prduces its function
> in reaction to necessity.
>
> your body is not continuously producing stomach acid.
>
> that mechanism shuts on and off according to need.
>
> well, this "new" stranding you propose,
> will have no such regulation.
A duplicated gene will likely be under the same transcriptional regulation
as its 'parent.'
> it will be a cancer.
No it won't.
> magic, see.
No, biology. Learn some.
> conscious design.
>
> and conscious design beyond any scope we can even imagine.
Your imagination must be even more limited than your knowledge, then.
Timothy Sutter
oh, it doesn't say that at all.
it says I understand the proposition and
find it to be a magical explanation.
don't presume to tell me what I understand.
chances are, maybe you don't understand
and that is why you accept it without applying
any of your so-called "skepticism".
this and the fact that you don't argue from my statements.
this would be called ...oh I'm sure *you* _are_ aware
of the "logical fallacy" you are employing.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > David G Dick wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > > >and we *hate* magical explanations.
> > > Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
> > > process of mutation.
> > here is a simple aaa --> aga mutation.
> > aaa is the "stop" codon. doesn't code for anything.
> Actually, AAA is lysine. UAA, UAG, and UGA are the stop codons.
> > (useful code)-aaa-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
nope, but irrelevant anyway.
a mutation in a stop codon causes the thing I describe.
> > aaa ---> aga mutation
> > (useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
> >
> > |-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
> > this stretch here will be unregulated, and therefore
> > reproduce itself without regulation as a cancer.
> Say WHAT? Cancer is caused when one of a specific subset of genes
> (dealing with control over cell proliferation; p53 being a primary
> culprit) is rendered nonfunctional by mutation.
this isn't the cause of every sort of cancer.
> You're talking about codons, which deals with translation of RNA to DNA.
> At worst, to my knowledge, the above situation might result in a protein
> with a few extra amino acids at the end, but would probably otherwise
> function identically to the wild type protein.
a few? not so, if a stop is interrupted
the new strand will merge two longer strands.
and if what you say is true, that a new protein will
behave in the same manner as the old unmutated version,
then no new trait will ever be developed by this function.
first you are demanding that a single small mutation will develop new traits
and then saying that a single point mutation won't affect the gene that much.
contradiction.
> > without regard to asking for an _extension_ in strand length,
> > you are asking for an unregulated "cancer"
> > to magically form a new apparatus.
> What is this gobbledygook you're spouting, anyway? It bears little to no
> relationship to biology. The demands you're placing on evolution have no
> basis in reality. MOST POINT MUTATIONS (that is, a change in a single
> amino acid) DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
I said a point mutation at a stop codon.
if you mean to claim that all "evolution" sprang
from single point mutations then you need even more
time than that the earth's age allows.
> Known genetic events such as gene duplication and exon shuffling allow
> more genetic material to be added to the genome. The duplicated gene can
> mutate into a new form without really adversely affecting the organism (as
> long as one of the genes retains its function). It's the reason we have
> "families" of closely related genes, and why many useful domains are
> highly conserved and found combined with other proteins.
so, you're still trying to make believe
that a gene duplicated itself, hung around
and presented an offsrping with a new function
ready suited to fullfill an environmental need.
that random mutation produced appendages where there were none.
> > so, you are asking a jelly fish to sprout a backbone,
> > by a very amazing sequence of magical events.
> Lightning must seem very "magical" to someone completely ignorant of
> electricity, who would need to unnecessarily postulate a god to explain
> that which is adequately explained by nature, but those of us willing to
> move out of the dark ages know better.
no, you're just willing to accept your magical fantasy
without proof. without skepticism.
> > first extending it's strand length, from material
> > previously on its dna, followed by that new strand
> > mutating to form _useful_ new apparati.
> Well, I'm very much afraid that that is all well within the realm of
> probability, based on what we know the genome to be capable of. And "new"
> apparati are quite frequently "old" apparati, jury-rigged to a new
> function. That's how evolution works. The notochord is, IIRC, basically
> epithelial tissue wrapped into a tube, as a likely result of a quirk of
> development. There's your "jellyfish backbone" right there.
quirk magic
"likely a quirk" is not a scientific explanation
what environmental stress caused a
jelly fish to need a backbone?
"basically" is not is.
> > oh, and provide viable offspring while this process is underway.
> I'd be happy to!
where's your proof?
> > all the while, realizing that any "new" code will be unregulated.
> Rubbish, as I showed above.
you showed nothing
> > and this means that dna prduces its function
> > in reaction to necessity.
> > your body is not continuously producing stomach acid.
> > that mechanism shuts on and off according to need.
> > well, this "new" stranding you propose,
> > will have no such regulation.
> A duplicated gene will likely be under the same transcriptional regulation
> as its 'parent.'
duplication does not offer any new apparatus.
if that gene mutates sufficiently it isn't
any longer progeny of the "parent"
so, now where is its regulation coming from?
Timothy Sutter
>
> Tim Schulz wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > David G Dick wrote:
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > > > >and we *hate* magical explanations.
>
> > > > Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
> > > > process of mutation.
>
> > > here is a simple aaa --> aga mutation.
>
> > > aaa is the "stop" codon. doesn't code for anything.
>
> > Actually, AAA is lysine. UAA, UAG, and UGA are the stop codons.
>
> > > (useful code)-aaa-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
>
> nope, but irrelevant anyway.
>
> a mutation in a stop codon causes the thing I describe.
>
> > > aaa ---> aga mutation
>
> > > (useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
> > >
> > > |-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
>
> > > this stretch here will be unregulated, and therefore
> > > reproduce itself without regulation as a cancer.
>
> > Say WHAT? Cancer is caused when one of a specific subset of genes
> > (dealing with control over cell proliferation; p53 being a primary
> > culprit) is rendered nonfunctional by mutation.
>
> this isn't the cause of every sort of cancer.
and this sort of stop codon mutation would be the only
sort that could bring about a large enough
single event mutation.
and by your own words, some single point mutation
will more than likely produce no new trait.
not even a new functioning protein.
and this large mutation as I've described
will more than likely result in a disease state.
just so you don't over quibble "cancer"
> > > (useful code)-aga-(useful code)-aaa-(useful code)
> > >
> > > |-----------------------------|-aaa-(useful code)
disease. I'll amend my terminology.
this sort of mutation is a disease state.
so now you're stuch either claiming a disease state
will magically give useful function
or double talking around your statement
that this "new" protein caused by single point mutation
will not affect the "wild type" much if at all.
B. Richardson
> Don Kresch wrote:
>
> > IIRC, Deuteronomy was the book that was written almost on-the-spot to help
> > a certain king with his claims.
>
> irrelevant and immaterial speculation.
It may be speculation, but if it's true, it's hardly irrelevant or immaterial. If an
entire book of the Bible were made up on the spot to further the political goals of an
ancient king, that would certainly tend to weaken the Christian claim that the Bible is
the "infallible word of God".
Supreme Patriarch
You don't understand, because biology does not explain evolution the way
you are trying to explain it. It is only a magical explanation because
you don't understand what you are talking about, And you don't
understand what you don't understand
But I also find certain things magical. Take for example this quotation
from 2 Chronicles, chapter 4 which is discussing the building of the
temple by Solomon:
> 2: Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
I find it extremely magical that anyone could possible believe the bible
is the absolute literal truth after they have read this passage. And I
await the magical explanation. (The point being that pi would have to
equal 3 exactly.) And if the bible can err in one small detail - which
happens to underlie nearly all of mathematics - then who can say where
the madness ends.
No - I'll stick with mathematics, the sciences, and the scientific
method. That I understand, because no magic is required.
John Tyrrell
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> > > >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
> > > False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything and is
> > > omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
> > and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
> > ergo, you have free will.
> This is the load of crap here.
why do you want to commit murder?
at least try to grasp the situation.
and for now, drop the "worship" bit
because i can see that you seem to have
this strange notion of "worship" as
paying some homage to a psychopath.
and this is not supported by *most*
people's view of scripture nor the bible itself.
so, move yourself away from the "worship" angle for a moment.
and concentrate on *what* is best for you.
and I'll ask again,
*why* do you want to commit murder?
could it be that *your* "free will"
is telling you to do a thing that will, in the long run,
not be beneficial to you nor your "society".
and so, as I said from the onset of this thread,
the "statute" is in your own best interest.
because in learning *why* the "statute" is
beneficial, you may lose your life and never
see growth on account of this "new" knowledge.
and God, at one time, used the "statute" to, at least,
show some semblance of "error" in the ways of man.
as a teaching instrument.
you seem to fail to recognize that, to a great extent,
the natural ways of man, his innate free will, so to speak,
is the very thing that brings death and destruction upon him.
and it is truly the benevolence of God
to show and or provide a way of
repair and reconcilliation.
that you may see this, for a time, as "oppression",
in no way nullifies nor rectifies the
oppression we place on ourselves.
somewhat like a child who cannot understand why
it cannot eat candy for every meal.
or play with matches.
the child may, for a time, see this denial as oppressive,
but in time it may understand that it's own actions,
based solely on its desires and wants, may have led
it down the road to sure destruction.
and also, as is quite clear, or should be,
God does not "force the hand."
just as no parent can live the life for the child.
and seek in any way to protect
the child from *all* harmful situations.
like, uh, we learn by doing, but we can't do everything.
and a little helpful advice never hurt anyone.
God only gets psycho on special occasions.
like when people lie to God's face.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it says I understand the proposition and
> > find it to be a magical explanation.
> You don't understand, because biology does not explain evolution the way
> you are trying to explain it. It is only a magical explanation because
> you don't understand what you are talking about, And you don't
> understand what you don't understand
you're boring me.
if "biology" doesn't explain these problems with this theory
then "it" has chosen to sweep them under the
rug in favor of blind acceptance.
and I'd only accuse people like you of doing that.
that "you people" don't emphasize these
problems is testament to your dishonesty.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Don Kresch wrote:
> > irrelevant and immaterial speculation.
deuteronomy was not written for some king.
Israel had no human king during this period.
the law was given even before the period of the judges.
that deuteronomy is, in part, "the words of Moses"
is not questioned, because the introduction
to deuteronomy says as much.
while numbers and leviticus open with
"the word of God spoke unto Moses"
but it is irrelevant in that Israel had a choice set before it.
this way leads to death.
this way leads to life.
choose life.
so all this talk about automated robots is nonsense.
Supreme Patriarch
>
> Supreme Patriarch <supremep...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:37E6B5EE...@usa.net...
> <snippage>
> >
> > But I also find certain things magical. Take for example this quotation
> > from 2 Chronicles, chapter 4 which is discussing the building of the
> > temple by Solomon:
> >
> > > 2: Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to
> brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its
> circumference.
> >
> > I find it extremely magical that anyone could possible believe the bible
> > is the absolute literal truth after they have read this passage. And I
> > await the magical explanation. (The point being that pi would have to
> > equal 3 exactly.) And if the bible can err in one small detail - which
> > happens to underlie nearly all of mathematics - then who can say where
> > the madness ends.
> >
> > No - I'll stick with mathematics, the sciences, and the scientific
> > method. That I understand, because no magic is required.
>
> This site takes a stab at a couple of solutions to your problem. The actual
> solution very likely has to do with the standards for measurement &
> significant digits (a NG poster several weeks or so ago explained this
> rather well, IMO). Unfortunately I found no URL to give with a comparably
> well-done explanation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tichy
Thanks for your comments and the link, Tichy. As long as one regards
the dimensions given as representing the state of mathematics at the
time of Solomon, then there is no problem. It is no secret that the
value of pi was indeed considered to be 3 at that time. So, what this
passage shows is the state of knowledge at that particular point in
history. And that concept should be extended to all the "facts" in the
bible - they represent the state of knowledge of the particular age.
And there is no reason for us to accept each and every of those facts
today any more then we accept 3 as the value of pi. Our state of
knowledge has changed. We know more about the world.
And the conclusion is be that we need not accept the bible as literal
truth, even though many do legitimately accept it as metaphorical,
allegorical, symbolic and / or figurative truth.
Cheers
John T
--
The Most Reverend Doctor John Tyrrell
Supreme Patriarch & Founder
Blackguard
<Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to his little inquiry.
> My response was met rather harshly by him who
> in his ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't create
> yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of
> the world by God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who
> accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the story of evolution
> (which in itself is nothing more than a theory).
The creation myth is just that, a myth. Nothing more, nothing less. As
for the theory of evolution, do you know how scientific principals are
formed? I suggest you check that out first.
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are there still apes on
> the planet?
That's because man didn't "evolve from apes". Now try reading a little
on the subject at hand before you come in here and profess your
ignorance to everybody.
Man shared a common ancestor with apes several million years ago. As
time went by, there were certain offshoots and branches created. The
last one is where chimps and ancient man diverged (as it stands,
chimps are our closest living relatives). So as time went by *all*
these species evolved into their present forms, and it's still
happening today. The only problem is, it's such a slow process and not
every one will be viable, that it just *looks* as if we haven't
changed.
> If God did not allow freewill to accept him or not to accept him, then why
> does he not just go on and destroy the earth and all of mankind with it?
Easy. Gawd isn't real. Therefore, he didn't do anything and he can't
destroy the world.
> Interesting
> questions I have to admit.
Only because you don't understand them.
> God does not do this because he is a loving God who
> offered his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. To wait patiently while we decide whether
> or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To every decision there is
> a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our sins over two-thousand years ago and
> now waits patiently for us to turn to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so.
What about the dudes that died before Jeezus Kryst died? Are they
condemned to eternal damnation? Or were they all "saved"
posthumously(sp?) . And if they were all saved that way, even though
they might have been "wicked" does that not mean that all those that
died without knowing Jeezus Kryst are *also* saved?
> The consequences of sin IS death, but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross
> for our sins, was buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father which is in heaven.
> No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a victory. Not Mohammad, nor
> Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still in
>the grave.
Shows how much you know.
Mohommed was lifted bodily into heaven. There was no body to bury.
As for Buddha, he couldn't get to "heaven" if he wanted to. You see,
there is no Buddhist heaven. They only have the unending Wheel of
Life. The eternal cycle of birth and re-birth until you reach the
final stage of enlightenment and finally break that cycle.
> God is in control from the very creation of this world until his Son comes back to claim
> his kingdom for all eternity.
Don't hold your breath. Won't be happening anytime in your lifetime,
or ever for that matter.
> There is a better day coming despite the bleak outlook we have
> in our society today. Even in this day and age of technology where we now live under the fear
>of the "millenium bug" or Y2K,---God is in control.
Y2K will be a drop in the bucket. There might be a small problem here
and there, but no global catastrophy.
> All one has to do is to trust in him with sincerity
> and his heart. "Let go, and let God". "We know that God causes all things to work together for
> good to those who love God...." Romans 8:28.
Bite me.
---
# 3.14159 Most Holy Blackguard, High Priest of the Church of
Iconoclasts
aa #869
Head of Covert Operations and EAC Black Helicopters
BAAWA!
ICQ # 16275757
to e-mail just use the appropriate numbers or letters, but beware, my
spamblock is up and running.
why you won for ate ate won three <at> yorku.ca
pain...@my-deja.com
Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Luke Kraemer wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > >Luke Kraemer wrote:
>
> > >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > >> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
> > >> >ergo, you have free will.
>
tomorrow
> > >> or if someone is going to murder you?
>
> > >Jeremiah 32:35
> > >They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
> > >son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
> > >Molech, though I did not command them,
>
> > > nor did it enter into my mind,
>
> > So god didn't know they were going to do this? But I thought god
> > always made perfect predictions about the future,
>
> obviously you thought incorrectly, thus my initial
> statement that this was "bullcrap" stands.
>
> > how did he not know
> > this was going to happen? Do your fellow christians know this is
what
> > you believe, that god was caught unawares? I'd stay inside during
> > lightning storms if I were you, underestimating your deity like
that.
>
> you don't care about understanding it,
> just mocking what you don't understand.
>
> big deal.
>
> > >that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
> > >_________________________________________________________
>
> > Bet god sure was surprised, right?
>
> no, God hoped for better,
> but wasn't "shocked" by worse.
>
> > So I guess that means you're not going to answer my questions, that
> > is, does god already know if you are going to commit murder
tomorrow?
> > Maybe if you could share with us your definition of "omniscience"
that
> > would help. And don't forget "free will".
>
> your question has been answered.
>
> now you're just playing games.
>
> enjoy yourself.
You're a mental pussy who is running away to his little mental corner
and whining while avoiding the questions.
paine3297 - involved in a atheist conspiracy for honesty and
prosperity. Laissez-Faire!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
pain...@my-deja.com
Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don Kresch wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
> > >Don Kresch wrote:
>
> > >> Timothy Sutter told us all that
>
> > >> >Michael J Nash wrote:
>
> > >> >> It seems obvious to me that the Christian assertions of "free
will" are,
> > >> >> therefore, innaccurate, to say the least.
>
> > >> >i couldn't read it all but it tells me that you've
> > >> >had your head stuffed with a supreme load of bullcrap.
>
> > >> I couldn't help but notice you have no evidence of that.
>
> > >/Many is the Christian who has justified the ferocity of their
god's alleged
> > >/wrath by saying that their god gave us free will. Their god,
they say,
> > >wants us to worship him; but he wants us to do so of our
volition. Those
> > >/of
> > >/us who choose to exercise our free will by denying the Christian
god,
> > >/therefore, have (as Christians claim) noone to blame but
ourselves when
> > >/their god sends us to hell.
>
> > That's a lot of begged questions.
>
> fine, and if I say there is much crap in there
> evidently I have sufficient evidence to feel that way.
And I have enough evidence from your posts to see that you are a
proctologist of your minister who sticks his head up his minister's ass
and comes out only for a breath of air and to expel human shit about
his minister's god-concept.
> > > This having been said, the question remains:
> > >/what is free will, exactly, and does it mesh with the Christian
> > >/interpretation of the term?
>
> > Free will is having the real ability to make choices. To be
of volitional
> > character. The xer interpretation, when coupled with an omniscient
god as the
> > xer god is supposed to be, does not mesh with reality.
>
> Deuteronomy 30:19
> I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
> that I have set before you life and death, blessing
> and curse; therefore choose life, that you and
> your descendants may live,
>
> apparently it is God's desire that we learn
> to make the proper choices that lead to happiness.
> and God's worthiness to instruct and
> impart wisdom comes from God's "ancient of days" status.
Proper choices in your context being, join my church because you need
to be a proper sheep to be manipulated by fear and misplaced guilt so
that the religious establishment can usurp a unearned livelihood.
> God never forced the hand of anyone.
Tell me the story of Saul on the road to Damascus again please.
> Job 15:5
> For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you
> choose the tongue of the crafty.
Translation: If you think for yourself and apply reason, man's tool for
survival you are cursed because it is contrary to our mystical nonsense.
> > >> >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> > >> >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
> > >> False analogy. Your god is said to have created
everything and is
> > >> omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
>
> > >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
> > Not if there is a god and it is omniscient.
>
> so, you say God directs a thief to steal?
>
> if this so-called "omniscience" lends God
> a wisdom that man could never come upon in his short life span,
> then we owe it proper consideration.
>
> but we are never forced to take instruction.
>
> > >ergo, you have free will.
>
> > Again, if the god is omniscient and created everything,
> > choice and free will are illusory.
>
> but if God is concerned that you make proper choices,
> that these proper choices will enable you to live
> in peace and happiness,
> then instruction in the way that produces life
> is of prime importance and no illusion at all.
You do not need the god-concept for man to live in peace and happiness.
You need rational self interest and this Universal Law:
1. No person, group of persons, or government has the right to initiate
force, coercion, or fraud against any person or his property.
2. The only exception to this shall be if someone attempts to initiate
force against you, then you may legally and morally respond with force.
3. No exceptions shall exist to 1 and 2.
The way that produces life is producing more values than one consumes
in a business like manner that will lead to biological immortality when
people stop wasting their time and money on mystical nonsense like you
are propagating.
> from your "no God" side, it can be claimed
> that all of man's choices are dictated by
> his desire to survive.
From your god-concept side your choices will be dictated by the dogma
of your church with their "true" interpretation and illumination of the
bible.
> in God's view, choices made under this criterion
> are inherently hurtful and destructive.
Translation: Our church will suffer if people start thinking for
themselves using logic and rational self interest. They will not need
us or our fantasies.
> in this sense, this removal of man's
> worrisome attitude about survival is
> the only way to impart to him true free will.
If man does not worry about his survival he will starve, freeze to
death, fry in the sun, etc. If you rely on your "heavenly father" and
do not plan for your survival you are either a idiot, a socialist, or
you believe your Uncle Sam has your best interests at heart. Man needs
to worry about his ultimate survival in working towards biological
immortality.
> that his choices should no longer be dictated
> to him by his sense of mortallity.
With biological immortality I can guarantee that people will be much
less worried about mortality.
> God's "forknowledge" that corn seeds planted
> in spring will flower in the fall in no way
> removes the necessity for man to mature
> in his decision making.
Man will make much more mature decisions if he drops silliness like the
god-concept and focuses on the purpose of life - rational happiness.
> and this is what God knows ahead of time.
>
> that some will flower to maturity.
>
> and also, that some will die without bearing fruit.
Yes those who hate mankind and life and cling to anti-man irrational
concepts like yours have bought into death for sale - religion and the
god-concept.
> God is not dictating a mindset,
You're right. The people who use the god-concept for their unearned
livelihood and for wielding psychological power over others have the
dictating mindset.
> God is presenting the avenue of understanding.
The avenue of understanding comes from reason and man's capability for
ever expanding knowlege.
paine3297 - involved in a atheist conspiracy for honesty and
prosperity. Laissez-Faire
Tichy
Tichy
> the dimensions given as representing the state of mathematics at the
> time of Solomon, then there is no problem. It is no secret that the
> value of pi was indeed considered to be 3 at that time. So, what this
> passage shows is the state of knowledge at that particular point in
> history. And that concept should be extended to all the "facts" in the
> bible - they represent the state of knowledge of the particular age.
>
> And there is no reason for us to accept each and every of those facts
> today any more then we accept 3 as the value of pi. Our state of
> knowledge has changed. We know more about the world.
>
> And the conclusion is be that we need not accept the bible as literal
> truth, even though many do legitimately accept it as metaphorical,
> allegorical, symbolic and / or figurative truth.
Actually that isn't the conclusion, particularly if the correct explanation
has to do with significant digits (which is quite likely, IMO).
If the approximation given were problematic, as you suggest, then later
generations who bother to list the value of pi to a greater number of
decimal places than we do now may justifiably ridicule our ignorance of pi.
The gist of the passage is plainly on description of a bowl, not upon
transmission of a mathematical figure or formula.
Cheers,
Tichy
STD DIALUP
: Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
: there still apes on the planet? If God did not allow freewill to accept =
: him or not to accept him, then why does he not just go on and destroy =
: the earth and all of mankind with it? Interesting questions I have to =
: admit. God does not do this because he is a loving God who offered his =
: Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
What kind of "loving" god threatens eternal punishment for less than a
century of crime. How does slamming you in the federal prison for twenty
five years at hard labor for exceeding the speed limit by .0000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000 mph sound ? Think about what your god does to those
"speeders".
: whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To =
: every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our =
: sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to turn =
Jesus did not pay any rasom. Dying & coming back is not my way of paying
some "price". If jesus was sent to eternal torment FOREVER for our "sins",
then it would deserve more respect. But three lousy days in the hole &
then back to heaven. No cigar this time.
NEXT...............
B. Richardson
> why do you want to commit murder?
>
> and I'll ask again,
>
> *why* do you want to commit murder?
>
> could it be that *your* "free will" is telling you to do a thing that will, in
> the long run, not be beneficial to you nor your "society".
Where is this coming from? Why do you think I want to commit murder? I never even
mentioned murder. I gave an analogy of a robber at an ATM threatening to kill
someone, but I in no way implied that the robber in the analogy was me. In fact, I
thought it was quite clear that the robber in the analogy was God, making
unreasonable demands upon pain of death.
> and it is truly the benevolence of God to show and or provide a way of repair
> and reconcilliation.
Ah, repair and reconciliation.... is that why there are so many instances in the
Bible where God told the Israelites to go out and wage war and when their enemy
was defeated to go ahead and slaughter the innocent women and children too?
Yeah, sounds like He's real big on repair and reconciliation.
> somewhat like a child who cannot understand why it cannot eat candy for every
> meal.
Yeah, but when the child sneaks some candy from the jar anyway, the parents don't
boil him to death or skin him alive, do they? But this is what God wants to do to
us spiritually when we disobey his "requests".
> and a little helpful advice never hurt anyone.
Sure, so long as that advice isn't accompanied with a death sentence for those who
choose not to take it.
> God only gets psycho on special occasions.
Well, at least you admit He does have psychopathic tendencies. It must be nice to
be able to heap praise and adoration on an entity that only goes psycho on
"special occasions". I know I can't
After all, Ted Bundy and Jeff Dahmer only went psycho on special occasions too.
I'm sure that's a great relief to their victims.
Timothy Sutter
> Man shared a common ancestor with apes several million years ago. As
> time went by, there were certain offshoots and branches created. The
> last one is where chimps and ancient man diverged (as it stands,
> chimps are our closest living relatives). So as time went by *all*
> these species evolved into their present forms, and it's still
> happening today. The only problem is, it's such a slow process and not
> every one will be viable, that it just *looks* as if we haven't
> changed.
please at least try to make it plausible.
you are confusing (possibly intentionally)
descending speciation with ascending speciation.
you are saying that there was some "proto-primate"
and this "proto-primate" would have to
be a composite of both humans and simians.
_it_ would have to have all of the genetic traits of both
in order to say that simians and humans diverged
from that sort of "common ancestry"
trouble with this is, in speciation of this sort,
the two divergent lines each will
have _lost_ genetic traits.
like the possibility of a cocker spaniel and
a german shepherd someday becoming
two distinct species.
(or offshots of one or the other, rather)
no, you have to reconcile a reverse form.
and that ain't gunna be easy.
you have to start with something like a squirrel.
(which is how "Lucy" is described)
and this squirrel has to form _new_ genetic traits.
a squirrel-like creature _cannot_ "diverge" into
two species each with larger richer genomes.
it is not proper to speak of
this sort of "dog breeding"
and *this* is where you can
propose the idea of "divergence".
No.
I call sleight of hand.
Dave Holloway
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
>there still apes on the planet?
WAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, Quotemeister, alt.atheist #1184
Thinking (non-)Theistically, DH's atheism resource page:
http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
Iconic Thought
STD DIALUP <disk...@users.leading.net> wrote in message
news:quCF3.455$nT.1...@news1.atlantic.net...
> CyberAl36 (Cybe...@email.msn.com) wrote:
>
> : Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
Man did not directly evolve from the apes we know today. Humans and
primates came from a common ancestor in the past. To ask why apes and
humans coexist is like asking why apes and orangutans exist together or
gorillas and spider monkeys. One did not come from the other, but these
groups had a same common ancestor. Same goes for other types of animals.
(trout and catfish, cardinal and blue jay, snake and lizard, etc.)
I wish some people could get this concept through their head. It really
drives me insane when people keep saying we evolved from apes.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > why do you want to commit murder?
> > and I'll ask again,
> > *why* do you want to commit murder?
> > could it be that *your* "free will" is telling you to do a thing that will, in
> > the long run, not be beneficial to you nor your "society".
> Where is this coming from? Why do you think I want to commit murder? I never even
> mentioned murder. I gave an analogy of a robber at an ATM threatening to kill
> someone, but I in no way implied that the robber in the analogy was me. In fact, I
> thought it was quite clear that the robber in the analogy was God, making
> unreasonable demands upon pain of death.
you missed my drift. my question is/was
unrelated to the little atm scenario.
I used "murder" as the most extreme measure of "unlawful" behavior.
and that was supposed to draw you into
some new understanding of the purpose
of the law in total.
and lead you away from this notion of God as
somehow making arbitrary and unduely
harsh demands of humans.
which flashes back, in part, to my
initial statement about this thread.
that this idea of God forcing a mindset
upon man is a perverse rendering at best.
> > and it is truly the benevolence of God to show and or provide a way of repair
> > and reconcilliation.
> Ah, repair and reconciliation.... is that why there are so many instances in the
> Bible where God told the Israelites to go out and wage war and when their enemy
> was defeated to go ahead and slaughter the innocent women and children too?
were you there?
Psalms 18:25-27
18:25
With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
with the blameless you show yourself blameless;
18:26
with the pure you show yourself pure;
and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.
18:27
For you deliver a humble people,
but the haughty eyes you bring down.
as I've said before, one's opinion of God says
more about that person than it does about God.
> Yeah, sounds like He's real big on repair and reconciliation.
you're still alive aren't you?
> > somewhat like a child who cannot understand why it cannot eat candy for every
> > meal.
> Yeah, but when the child sneaks some candy from the jar anyway, the parents don't
> boil him to death or skin him alive, do they? But this is what God wants to do to
> us spiritually when we disobey his "requests".
death, bub, plain old death.
God will not perpetuate the existance of a
creature that God knows will see only misery.
and if one goes the way that "seems" right to man,
he will only end up in a miserable state.
just like King Midas.
remember, he didn't know what was best for himself.
but he sure found out how much he didn't know.
> > and a little helpful advice never hurt anyone.
> Sure, so long as that advice isn't accompanied with a death sentence for those who
> choose not to take it.
you are going to die anyway, *because* of your present mindset.
can't you see that nothing changed about Adam when he ate?
he simply became aware of his mortallity.
of his "less that God" state.
> > God only gets psycho on special occasions.
> Well, at least you admit He does have psychopathic tendencies.
that was supposed to be humor, as I see,
I shant use humor with you any more.
Michael J Nash
>
> Israel had no human king during this period.
>
> the law was given even before the period of the judges.
>
> that deuteronomy is, in part, "the words of Moses"
>
> is not questioned, because the introduction
> to deuteronomy says as much.
Actually, the book of Deuteronomy, from what I understand, wasn't put into
writing until much later in history than the period of time it alludes to,
and the laws it contains were developed to reflect the changing nature of
Hebrew culture from that of a nomadic tribe to that of a settled kingdom.
The laws in Deuteronomy were probably put into Moses' mouth by later
authorities to give those laws validity with the people of Israel so that
they would gain acceptance and adherence.
>
(snipped a bunch of Sutter nonsense)
Michael J Nash
still have not addressed the central issue here, probably because you know
you're wrong and don't want to admit it.
Here's what you were asked again:
********************************************************
God demanding to be worshipped upon pain of
everlasting damnation and torment is roughly akin to someone being held at
gunpoint at the ATM machine. The gunman demands she give over all her money
or
he'll shoot her in the head. Does she have a choice whether to cooperate or
not?
Sure, she could refuse and have her brains blown all over the wall, but most
right-thinking people would say she has NO MEANINGFUL CHOICE but to accede
to
the gunman's demands and cooperate.
*********************************************************
Please address this, if you have the balls to do so.
Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37E6BC7C...@yahoo.com...
> B. Richardson wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > > >in the face of legal statutes, do you
> > > > >still have a choice whether to commit murder or not?
>
> > > > False analogy. Your god is said to have created everything
and is
> > > > omniscient. Ergo, all is planned out. No free will.
>
> > > and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>
> > > ergo, you have free will.
>
> > This is the load of crap here.
>
> why do you want to commit murder?
>
> at least try to grasp the situation.
>
> and for now, drop the "worship" bit
> because i can see that you seem to have
> this strange notion of "worship" as
> paying some homage to a psychopath.
> and this is not supported by *most*
> people's view of scripture nor the bible itself.
>
> so, move yourself away from the "worship" angle for a moment.
>
> and concentrate on *what* is best for you.
>
> and I'll ask again,
>
> *why* do you want to commit murder?
>
> could it be that *your* "free will"
> is telling you to do a thing that will, in the long run,
> not be beneficial to you nor your "society".
>
> and so, as I said from the onset of this thread,
>
> the "statute" is in your own best interest.
>
> because in learning *why* the "statute" is
> beneficial, you may lose your life and never
> see growth on account of this "new" knowledge.
>
> and God, at one time, used the "statute" to, at least,
> show some semblance of "error" in the ways of man.
>
> as a teaching instrument.
>
> you seem to fail to recognize that, to a great extent,
> the natural ways of man, his innate free will, so to speak,
> is the very thing that brings death and destruction upon him.
>
> and it is truly the benevolence of God
> to show and or provide a way of
> repair and reconcilliation.
>
> that you may see this, for a time, as "oppression",
>
> in no way nullifies nor rectifies the
> oppression we place on ourselves.
>
> somewhat like a child who cannot understand why
> it cannot eat candy for every meal.
>
> or play with matches.
>
> the child may, for a time, see this denial as oppressive,
>
> but in time it may understand that it's own actions,
> based solely on its desires and wants, may have led
> it down the road to sure destruction.
>
> and also, as is quite clear, or should be,
>
> God does not "force the hand."
>
> just as no parent can live the life for the child.
>
> and seek in any way to protect
> the child from *all* harmful situations.
>
> like, uh, we learn by doing, but we can't do everything.
>
> and a little helpful advice never hurt anyone.
>
> God only gets psycho on special occasions.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > >Jeremiah 32:35
> > > >They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
> > > >son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
> > > >Molech, though I did not command them,
> > > > nor did it enter into my mind,
> > > So god didn't know they were going to do this? But I thought god
> > > always made perfect predictions about the future,
> > obviously you thought incorrectly, thus my initial
> > statement that this was "bullcrap" stands.
> > your question has been answered.
> > now you're just playing games.
> > enjoy yourself.
> You're a mental pussy who is running away to his little mental corner
> and whining while avoiding the questions.
I'm not interested in arguing with people
whose understanding of things comes from
the back of a Cheerios box.
not that I have anything against Cheerios.
Jesus came to set the captives free.
and whomsoever Jesus sets free is free indeed.
the simple truth.
just like Cheerios and milk.
too bad you couldn't understand the
simple message in the cereal.
and got lost looking for the secret prize.
pain...@my-deja.com
In other words "I can't answer so I am going to attack the mental
ablilities of the person I disagree with". I noticed this in your
previous posts so I responded in kind with a few ad hominem attacks of
my own.
Freedom? You talk of freedom when you are a parroting slave of
christian propaganda that you have been brainwashed into? I believe it
was the Apostle Paul who said he was a slave for christ. He also said
follow me as I follow christ. So which is it? Are you a slave to
christianity or are you a free man?
You need to check out htt://www.cygnus-study.com before you start
parroting biblical passages.
As to my understanding christian scriptures and their meaning, I would
say that my level of understanding is above the average protestant
minister since my father was a minister, I grew up in church, and went
to bible college for a year.
You wouldn't know the simple truth if it bit you in the ass.
David G Dick
Timothy Sutter wrote in message <37E681A5...@yahoo.com>...
>David G Dick wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote...
>> >and we *hate* magical explanations.
>
>> Certainly a lot more magical than a gradual
>> process of mutation.
>
>here is a simple aaa --> aga mutation.
<snip lecture on genetics>
>magic, see.
>
>conscious design.
>
>and conscious design beyond any scope we can even imagine.
I ain't no scientist, so I snipped the genetics bit because it was
above my head. But what I had to say was a resounding "SO WHAT".
Basically your entire argument seems to be based on "I don't think
evolution is very likely. It sounds to me like magic. Everything coming
from nowhere doesn't sound like magic to me. So that's what happened."
Very scientific.
Well, I just want to point out that I wasn't even attempting to engage
in an argument about the viability of evolutionary mutation. I was just
saying, in a sort of shorthand way, that no matter how unlikely it seems
that evolution is the cause of human life, creation from nothing by an
unknown being is even more unlikely, because it has no evidence at all.
You aren't even able to discuss the mechanisms of creationism as you are
with evolution. That must say something. In my opinion what it says is
"there IS no mechanism."
--
David G Dick
"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
Luke Kraemer
>In article <37E59B77...@yahoo.com>,
> Timothy Sutter <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Luke Kraemer wrote:
>>
>> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > >Luke Kraemer wrote:
>>
>> > >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > >> >and yet you are perfectly free to either murder of not murder.
>>
>> > >> >ergo, you have free will.
>>
>> > >> Does your god already know if you're going to murder someone
>tomorrow
>> > >> or if someone is going to murder you?
>>
>> > >Jeremiah 32:35
>> > >They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the
>> > >son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to
>> > >Molech, though I did not command them,
>>
>> > > nor did it enter into my mind,
>>
>> > So god didn't know they were going to do this? But I thought god
>> > always made perfect predictions about the future,
>>
>> obviously you thought incorrectly, thus my initial
>> statement that this was "bullcrap" stands.
>>
>> > how did he not know
>> > this was going to happen? Do your fellow christians know this is
>what
>> > you believe, that god was caught unawares? I'd stay inside during
>> > lightning storms if I were you, underestimating your deity like
>that.
>>
>> you don't care about understanding it,
>> just mocking what you don't understand.
>>
>> big deal.
>>
>> > >that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
>> > >_________________________________________________________
>>
>> > Bet god sure was surprised, right?
>>
>> no, God hoped for better,
>> but wasn't "shocked" by worse.
>>
>> > So I guess that means you're not going to answer my questions, that
>> > is, does god already know if you are going to commit murder
>tomorrow?
>> > Maybe if you could share with us your definition of "omniscience"
>that
>> > would help. And don't forget "free will".
>>
>> your question has been answered.
>>
>> now you're just playing games.
>>
>> enjoy yourself.
>
>You're a mental pussy who is running away to his little mental corner
>and whining while avoiding the questions.
>
>paine3297 - involved in a atheist conspiracy for honesty and
>prosperity. Laissez-Faire!
Don't even waste your time. I've been asking these questions for 25
years and not one single fundie has ever even attempted to answer
them. This is the most common reaction, eyes closed, ears plugged,
running the opposite direction as fast as possible, cursing me to
eternal damnation, and accusing me of being childish (reading Cheerios
boxes).
Luke
Fundies would make great pinball wizards if they only knew where to
put the cork.
B. Richardson
> > > and it is truly the benevolence of God to show and or provide a way of repair
> > > and reconcilliation.
>
> > Ah, repair and reconciliation.... is that why there are so many instances in the
> > Bible where God told the Israelites to go out and wage war and when their enemy
> > was defeated to go ahead and slaughter the innocent women and children too?
>
> were you there?
>
> Psalms 18:25-27
> 18:25
> With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
> with the blameless you show yourself blameless;
> 18:26
> with the pure you show yourself pure;
> and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.
> 18:27
> For you deliver a humble people,
> but the haughty eyes you bring down.
>
> as I've said before, one's opinion of God says
> more about that person than it does about God.
And how does this justify the wholesale slaughter of small children and babies at the
behest of the "loving" sky-god?
> > Yeah, sounds like He's real big on repair and reconciliation.
>
> you're still alive aren't you?
Yes, because my biological processes are still functioning, not because of supernatural
intervention.
> > > somewhat like a child who cannot understand why it cannot eat candy for every
> > > meal.
>
> > Yeah, but when the child sneaks some candy from the jar anyway, the parents don't
> > boil him to death or skin him alive, do they? But this is what God wants to do to
> > us spiritually when we disobey his "requests".
>
> death, bub, plain old death.
>
> God will not perpetuate the existance of a
> creature that God knows will see only misery.
Now I'm really confused. You say he'll kill me, take me out of this life (which I don't
find to be miserable in the least) and send me to hell for an eternity of torture in
order to spare me from misery here on earth? Why is it you can't see how utterly
ridiculous this is?
> > > and a little helpful advice never hurt anyone.
>
> > Sure, so long as that advice isn't accompanied with a death sentence for those who
> > choose not to take it.
>
> you are going to die anyway, *because* of your present mindset.
Perhaps, but if there is an afterlife, God doesn't HAVE to condemn me to hell for my
present mindset. If He exists, He does so of his OWN free will. He's making a choice to
cause eternal pain and misery just because I don't want to be friends with Him. Here on
earth, we call people like that stalkers and put them in prison for it.
> > > God only gets psycho on special occasions.
>
> > Well, at least you admit He does have psychopathic tendencies.
>
> that was supposed to be humor, as I see, I shant use humor with you any more.
Funny how the truth shines through the humor.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > God will not perpetuate the existance of a
> > creature that God knows will see only misery.
> Now I'm really confused.
right, you're very confused.
and your head is filled with nonsense.
> You say he'll kill me, take me out
> of this life (which I don't
> find to be miserable in the least)
"he" isn't killing anyone.
you are mortal.
humans never were immortal.
Adam wasn't immortal.
> and send me to
> hell for an eternity of torture in
this is nonsense, which shows that you are confused.
get _mortal_ thru your skull.
> order to spare me from misery here on earth?
if you were to become immortal, the way you think now,
you'd be looking for an escape in a small matter of time.
> Why is it you can't see how utterly
> ridiculous this is?
no, I can only see how you've been filled with a lot of nonsense,
and so my initial view on this thread stands.
stupid questions dreamt up by ignorant fools.
Charles Henning
<Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF02D7.CDF56960
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I got an email message from Michael Nash after responding to his =
>little inquiry. My response was met rather harshly by him who in his =
>ultimate "I know all" wisdom cannot believe in anything that you didn't =
>create yourself. A Christian believes in the Creation of the world by =
>God and as of late explanations have come from many scientists who =
>accept the Creation story as more and more of a theory just like the =
>story of evolution(which in itself is nothing more than a theory). =20
> Let me ask you this. If man evolved from apes, then why are =
>there still apes on the planet?
Why wouldn't there be? What in evolution theory says that if one
species evolves from another that the first is qutomatically extinct?
> If God did not allow freewill to accept = him or not to accept him,
> then why does he not just go on and destroy =
>the earth and all of mankind with it?
What would be the point? Destroy your own creation? Admit defeat?
> Interesting questions I have to = >admit. God does not do this because
> he is a loving God who offered his = Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
Interesting theory.
> To wait patiently while we decide =
>whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To =
>every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our =
>sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to turn =
>to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so. The consequences of =
>sin IS death,
The consequence of life is death.
> but Jesus conquered death by dying on a cross for our =
>sins, was buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of the Father =
>which is in heaven.
another interesting theory
> No other worldly religious teacher can claim such a =
>victory. Not Mohammad, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, whose bodies are still =
>in the grave. =20
How do you know?
> God is in control from the very creation of this world
Now this is a possibility
> until his Son comes back to claim his kingdom for all eternity. There is a better =
>day coming despite the bleak outlook we have in our society today.
Doesn't look all that bleak to me
> Even in this day and age of technology where we now live under the fear of =
>the "millenium bug" or Y2K,
What a lousty way to live, are you really that worried?
>---God is in control. All one has to do is =
>to trust in him with sincerity and his heart. "Let go, and let God". =
I have no problem with this part.
>"We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those =
>who love God...." Romans 8:28. =20
>
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Psalms 18:25-27
> > 18:25
> > With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
> > with the blameless you show yourself blameless;
> > 18:26
> > with the pure you show yourself pure;
> > and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.
> > 18:27
> > For you deliver a humble people,
> > but the haughty eyes you bring down.
> > as I've said before, one's opinion of God says
> > more about that person than it does about God.
> And how does this justify the wholesale slaughter of small children and babies at the
> behest of the "loving" sky-god?
these people threw their own children on the fire
in some sort of homage to gods made with their own hands.
i.e. they slaughtered their own
children to their own ideas of good.
when God turned _them_ over to the basest
instincts of man, they engaged in
this sort of despicable behavior of their own free will.
and this is just one of the "despicable acts"
in which these people were engaged.
God merely instructed Israel to put this sort
of vileness from their midst completely.
that no vestige of this would carry over.
trouble is that they didn't utterly anihilate this madness,
and it crept back into their midst insofar as Israel
engaged in these very same despicable acts.
and God is not a "sky-god"
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you are going to die anyway, *because* of your present mindset.
>
> Perhaps, but if there is an afterlife, God doesn't HAVE
> to condemn me to hell for my present mindset. If He exists,
> He does so of his OWN free will. He's making a choice to
> cause eternal pain and misery just because I don't want
> to be friends with Him. Here on
> earth, we call people like that stalkers and put them in prison for it.
get this thru your silly little head,
you are mortal.
God is life.
God alone has life inherent.
human beings do not possess life.
they are given life, for a time.
and God has not the obligation to perpetuate
the life of a spoiled little child who
thinks she knows best.
and then force god to coddle that same
spoiled little brat when she gets everything she asked
for and finds out she asked for the wrong thing
and starts in with the histrionics.
we call these, spoiled little brats, and we send them to reform school.
and if they remain spoiled little brats we feed them to dogs.
after all, that's what they wanted in the first place.
and when you get what you want, you have no one else to blame.
Matt Schroeder
> Tim Schulz wrote:
>
> what environmental stress caused a
> jelly fish to need a backbone?
>
Heh. Hold on there, Lamarck. This sentence shows that you truly do not
undertand the current theory of evolution. Mutations that cause adaptions
are not the result of an environmental stress. No one claims that an
evironmental factor forces or directs a trait to occur. What is claimed is
that mutations occur resulting in different phenotypes that allow
organisms to either better survive conditions or better compete with
others for an established niche or to exploit a new niche.
Further, you assert that any mutation must immediately result in a
phenotype and that said phenotype must be in the exact form that it is
found in today. Why? Gene duplication rarely results in duplication of an
entire, functional gene. Your stomach acid producing "gene" would be
duplicated most likely in part, so that even if it would be transcribed
and translated into protein, the enzyme would be incomplete and most
likely non-functional. Now this "creation" of new genetic material is free
to mutate at no cost (other than some lost energy, but I think one can
logically allow for that) to the organism.
One more thing. The removal of a stop codon does NOT result in cancer. A
stop codon does not turn off RNA production, it causes the RNA polymerase
to fall off. Transcription rates are unaffected by the presence or absence
of a stop codon, the length of the transcript now, that it affects.
Perhaps it's time you are introduced (or review at least) to a little
concept in genetics called the central dogma. In brief it says DNA goes to
RNA goes to protein. Cancer in general happens because of an error in the
first step, ie too much RNA transcript. A codon change results in an error
in the second step ie, a transcript that is too large (in the case of a
mutated stop codon) and thus translates into a protein that may have no,
some, or complete functional difference, regardless it is not the cause of
cancer merely, at worst, the cause of some syndrome caused by a non or
semi-functional enzyme.
matt.
Athemyst
They do it because a) they're ignorant and/or b) they know it drives others
nuts.
The auxiliary question (why aren't chimps still evolving?) is another one
that gets me. (Answer: they are, of course, especially since their
numbers - and available alleles - have dwindled dramatically in recent
times).
Keep smiling and don't go insane just yet.
Athemyst the anthropologist
Timothy Sutter
> > what environmental stress caused a
> > jelly fish to need a backbone?
> Heh. Hold on there, Lamarck. This sentence shows that you truly do not
> undertand the current theory of evolution. Mutations that cause adaptions
> are not the result of an environmental stress. No one claims that an
> evironmental factor forces or directs a trait to occur. What is claimed is
> that mutations occur resulting in different phenotypes that allow
> organisms to either better survive conditions or better compete with
> others for an established niche or to exploit a new niche.
which is even more far fetched.
a dna mutation is a random misprint of a base triplet
of which one cause is suggested to be
exposure to ultra violet radiation.
just addressing mutational genetic "enrichment";
so, you'd be postulating that an organism
suited to its present environment, adds new genetic
material, a copy of something it already possesses,
and survives long enough for this old gene to rewrite itself
to provide a brand new functionality and pass this on to offspring.
and this new function allows it to wander
off into a new environment.
realizing that for creatures of larger genome,
a single mutation in a single cell need not be
passed on to any of its progeny.
that cell will probably be simply killed
as an intruder by the body's own defense mechanism.
> Further, you assert that any mutation must immediately result in a
> phenotype and that said phenotype must be in the exact form that it is
> found in today. Why? Gene duplication rarely results in duplication of an
> entire, functional gene. Your stomach acid producing "gene" would be
> duplicated most likely in part, so that even if it would be transcribed
> and translated into protein, the enzyme would be incomplete and most
> likely non-functional. Now this "creation" of new genetic material is free
> to mutate at no cost (other than some lost energy, but I think one can
> logically allow for that) to the organism.
"free to mutate" is meaningless.
you have a "new" bit of genetic material
that you claim will be dormant and ineffectual for anything.
this being the case, there is nothing that dictates
that this dormant piece will ever suffer
another bout with mutational dynamic.
to say that some dynamic will _choose_ just this
new "useless" replica to work a new trait is unfounded.
_example_
"it takes heart muscle and reworks it into leg muscle."
"and then when it needs leg muscle it turns itself on."
see how this is a magical explanation?
not to mention, that if mutations are occurring in this dormant piece,
it most assuredly are occurring in the rest of the organism.
anything that would cause such extensive
mutations in the first place would be deadly.
> One more thing. The removal of a stop codon does NOT result in cancer. A
> stop codon does not turn off RNA production, it causes the RNA polymerase
> to fall off. Transcription rates are unaffected by the presence or absence
> of a stop codon, the length of the transcript now, that it affects.
on dna
gang of bases-stop-gang of bases-stop-gang of bases-stop...etc..
rna brings amino acids to the dna and stitches a protein together.
and when the work is done we have three independant blobs of protein.
mutate one stop.
the "stop" codes for no amino acid.
that's why it's a "stop" ok
and now where the stop was, either codes for a bigger blob of protein
that may in fact be unregulated and replicate constantly,
*or* as you suggest, it may simply be a dummy
if it produces a protein without regulation,
it will make a blob of knotted useless protein, a "tumor"
if it just hangs there, dormant, there is no necessity that
it ever become useful nor even passed on.
it may simply kill that particular cell.
> Perhaps it's time you are introduced (or review at least) to a little
> concept in genetics called the central dogma. In brief it says DNA goes to
> RNA goes to protein.
central dogma of genetics
"DNA is the template for its own replication"
this thing you cite is no central dogma.
rna simply acts as messengers and the mode of transfer.
they bring amino acids to dna and dna stitches a protein together.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> <snip lecture on genetics>
> I ain't no scientist, so I snipped the genetics bit because it was
> above my head. But what I had to say was a resounding "SO WHAT".
> Basically your entire argument seems to be based on "I don't think
> evolution is very likely. It sounds to me like magic. Everything coming
> from nowhere doesn't sound like magic to me. So that's what happened."
> Very scientific.
did I ever say everything came from nothing?
not really, in fact I don't think I ever said
anything here about what i believe in that regard.
I did say, that ten thousand monkeys typing
for an eternity will never produce a dictionary.
random chance doesn't produce intelligible language.
and the genomic literature is very
particular in its sentence structure.
this does seem to scream design.
even if that design is simply a replica
of some immaterial living force.
> Well, I just want to point out that I wasn't even attempting to engage
> in an argument about the viability of evolutionary mutation. I was just
> saying, in a sort of shorthand way, that no matter how unlikely it seems
> that evolution is the cause of human life,
no offense, but then you believe in magic monkeys.
> creation from nothing by an
> unknown being is even more unlikely, because it has no evidence at all.
> You aren't even able to discuss the mechanisms of creationism as you are
> with evolution. That must say something. In my opinion what it says is
> "there IS no mechanism."
sure there is, and you see a faint replica of this mechanism
every time you plant seeds in the ground.
material substance orders itself around
the immaterial living force.
living organisms must resemble this living force
because this living force provided the
initial template for creation.
and that is why all living organisms are
nothing more than complex rearrangements
of very simple structural entities.
but that this ordering is still specific.
test one, when this living force leaves, a thing ceases to live.
the chemical structure of a thing upon the
moment of "death" has not changed.
that's why people still scratch their head over death.
etceterae upon demand.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > David G Dick wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >
> > > <snip lecture on genetics>
> >
> > > I ain't no scientist, so I snipped the genetics bit because it was
> > > above my head. But what I had to say was a resounding "SO WHAT".
> > > Basically your entire argument seems to be based on "I don't think
> > > evolution is very likely. It sounds to me like magic. Everything coming
> > > from nowhere doesn't sound like magic to me. So that's what happened."
> > > Very scientific.
> >
> > did I ever say everything came from nothing?
> > not really, in fact I don't think I ever said
> > anything here about what i believe in that regard.
> >
> > I did say, that ten thousand monkeys typing
> > for an eternity will never produce a dictionary.
> >
> > random chance doesn't produce intelligible language.
> >
> > and the genomic literature is very
> > particular in its sentence structure.
> >
> > this does seem to scream design.
> >
> > even if that design is simply a replica
> > of some immaterial living force.
>
> and I'm not entirely depersonalizing God.
>
> but at a certain level, God simply "is"
>
> nothing "special" just "is"
but God has personality.
and directional control over itself,
which simply "is"
Timothy Sutter
>
> David G Dick wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote...
>
> > <snip lecture on genetics>
>
> > I ain't no scientist, so I snipped the genetics bit because it was
> > above my head. But what I had to say was a resounding "SO WHAT".
> > Basically your entire argument seems to be based on "I don't think
> > evolution is very likely. It sounds to me like magic. Everything coming
> > from nowhere doesn't sound like magic to me. So that's what happened."
> > Very scientific.
>
> did I ever say everything came from nothing?
> not really, in fact I don't think I ever said
> anything here about what i believe in that regard.
>
> I did say, that ten thousand monkeys typing
> for an eternity will never produce a dictionary.
>
> random chance doesn't produce intelligible language.
>
> and the genomic literature is very
> particular in its sentence structure.
>
> this does seem to scream design.
>
> even if that design is simply a replica
> of some immaterial living force.
and I'm not entirely depersonalizing God.
but at a certain level, God simply "is"
nothing "special" just "is"
> > Well, I just want to point out that I wasn't even attempting to engage
STD DIALUP
: <Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
: > To wait patiently while we decide =
: >whether or not to accept his Son Jesus as Lord and Savior or not. To =
: >every decision there is a price to pay. Jesus payed the price for our =
: >sins over two-thousand years ago and now waits patiently for us to turn =
: >to him without coercion, or arm twisting to do so. The consequences of =
: >sin IS death,
If constant threats of hellfire is not arm twisting then I don't know what
is.
gmo...@my-deja.com
basic logic, or the definition of free will and/or omniscience. Let me
clear it up for you, and if this doesn't work, read the FAQ, there is
very probably a section devoted to this very question.
First off, let me define free will and oniscience. Free will is the
ability to choose between at least two different choices in any decision
and by that choice affect the future. Omniscience is the knowledge of
everything. Period.
Now, since omniscience is the knowledge of everything, that includes the
knowledge of the future and all outcomes of choices. So, if omniscience
exists in a particular system, it implies that the future is indeed
knowable and therefore is definite and not subject to choice. In
essence, because the future is knowable, that means there cannot be more
than one choice in any given situation and the possibility of free will
is denied because for free will to exist, there must be at least two
distinct choices in any give decision. In short, you can have either
omniscience or free will in a given system, but not both.
Nakiz
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> do you really?
>
> I think if you did, you'd see
> that it is a magical explanation.
Ok buddy, I think you should go make an appointment with a psychiatrist,
you are not only stupid, you are also delusional. Get some help!
ciao!
--
"A thiest is like a blind man in a dark room, searching for a black
cat that isn't there... and finding it!"
...Love Always...
LeNakiz
David G Dick
Timothy Sutter wrote in message <37E844DF...@yahoo.com>...
>did I ever say everything came from nothing?
Well, if creatures were around since eternity, then I guess they didn't
come from nothing. But if there was a point in time before which living
beings didn't exist, then there WAS nothing. (in material, organic terms)
Unless I am mistaken that is a dichotomy, one which you seem to ignore.
>I did say, that ten thousand monkeys typing
>for an eternity will never produce a dictionary.
You must have a very wacky definition of the terms "eternity" or perhaps
"probability". If something is even theoretically possible, then in an
eternity that thing must happen by definition, and not only that, it must
happen an infinite number of times.
>random chance doesn't produce intelligible language.
I beg to differ. I remember reading about some weird German physicists who
hooked up a geiger counter to a PC just for fun. It created enormous
strings of unintelligible characters, but also came up with a few readable
sentences. If you know chaos theory, you'll know that order comes from
chaos all the time.
>this does seem to scream design.
To you, maybe.
>no offense, but then you believe in magic monkeys.
I'd rather that than believe in a magic sky pixie. (No offense)
>> creation from nothing by an
>> unknown being is even more unlikely, because it has no evidence at all.
>> You aren't even able to discuss the mechanisms of creationism as you are
>> with evolution. That must say something. In my opinion what it says is
>> "there IS no mechanism."
>
>sure there is, and you see a faint replica of this mechanism
>every time you plant seeds in the ground.
The plant doesn't come from nothing; it comes from an organic seed. Before
creatures existed, there were no seeds or anything of the sort. So where
did they come from? This is the mechanism to which I refer, and it has no
direct analog to the growth of a plant. This is true whether you believe in
abiogenesis or creationism.
>material substance orders itself around
>the immaterial living force.
Can you back that up scientifically, or is it just your opinion?
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >did I ever say everything came from nothing?
> But if there was a point in time before which living
> beings didn't exist, then there WAS nothing.
> (in material, organic terms)
but God is not "nothing"
I meant exactly that and you know it.
> >I did say, that ten thousand monkeys typing
> >for an eternity will never produce a dictionary.
> You must have a very wacky definition of the terms "eternity" or perhaps
> "probability". If something is even theoretically possible, then in an
> eternity that thing must happen by definition, and not only that, it must
> happen an infinite number of times.
yet the night sky is not illuminated
and so there was a "beginning" of this universe.
and now we have a set limit on this "eternity"
and 14 billion years doesn't approach infinity.
> >random chance doesn't produce intelligible language.
> I beg to differ. I remember reading about some weird German physicists who
> hooked up a geiger counter to a PC just for fun. It created enormous
> strings of unintelligible characters, but also came up with a few readable
> sentences. If you know chaos theory, you'll know that order comes from
> chaos all the time.
"I am" is a "readable sentence." "it is"
but "Iam" is unintelligible nonsense and so is "itis"
I'm afraid your geiger counter didn't
place the spaces there, your human did.
bogus.
> >this does seem to scream design.
> To you, maybe.
I'm the one that matters.
> >no offense, but then you believe in magic monkeys.
> I'd rather that than believe in a magic sky pixie. (No offense)
maybe so, but I have evidence of God,
and your magic monkeys don't exist.
> >> creation from nothing by an
> >> unknown being is even more unlikely, because it has no evidence at all.
> >> You aren't even able to discuss the mechanisms of creationism as you are
> >> with evolution. That must say something. In my opinion what it says is
> >> "there IS no mechanism."
> >sure there is, and you see a faint replica of this mechanism
> >every time you plant seeds in the ground.
> The plant doesn't come from nothing; it comes from an organic seed. Before
> creatures existed, there were no seeds or anything of the sort. So where
> did they come from? This is the mechanism to which I refer, and it has no
> direct analog to the growth of a plant. This is true whether you believe in
> abiogenesis or creationism.
the seed organizes matter around itself like a tiny factory.
and quite correct, before there were organisms there were no seeds,
and yet, "DNA is the template for its own replication," and it never
simply springs from "nothing" as you say.
"it" needs itself to reproduce itself.
sdo, unlike the need for something to create God,
there is most definitely a _need_ to create DNA.
> >material substance orders itself around
> >the immaterial living force.
> Can you back that up scientifically, or is it just your opinion?
we are past the original creation
and are now viewing the decay
of the universe.
but we see a replica of the creation when a seed takes root.
start from your own "big bang" cosmology.
the claim is that the universe sprang from a tiny seed.
(call it a singularity if it makes you feel better)
but given a "beginning" there must needs be a "before the beginning"
and "before the beginning" there was only God.
and some sort of potential difference
in God initiated the "violent" genesis of things.
and i say "violent" because action ensued.
but this "God" didn't _die_ in the beginning.
or if it did, it will come again.
and it has.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > do you really?
> > I think if you did, you'd see
> > that it is a magical explanation.
> Ok buddy, I think you should go make an appointment with a psychiatrist,
> you are not only stupid, you are also delusional. Get some help!
my delusion makes me happy
your delusion makes you a snotty little brat.
who *really* needs the help?
I WIN
YAY <does victory dance>
HA HA HA I win.
Matt Schroeder
<tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<"knowledge" he gained somewhere other than a biology text, perhaps the
bible code.>
Your knowledge of genetics and molecular biology is astoudingly poor for
the confidence you seem to possess. You are wrong on nearly every element,
not least of which your definition of the central dogma. Idiocy bores me.
Claim your "victory" and continue your ignorance...perhaps there is
something to this religion thing, life sure must be blissful.
matt.
B. Richardson
> B. Richardson wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> you are mortal.
>
> God is life.
>
> God alone has life inherent.
>
> human beings do not possess life.
>
> they are given life, for a time.
>
> and God has not the obligation to perpetuate the life of a spoiled little
> child who thinks she knows best.
So are you saying that since I'm mortal, when I die I will go to Heaven if I
believe in God and just poof out of existence otherwise? I've always had
Christians tell me that I'll go to Hell if I don't go to Heaven. If Hell is
my supposed fate, then I'm not mortal after all. If I will live forever, in
either Heaven or Hell, then at least part of me is immortal and my original
point still stands: if there is an afterlife, God doesn't HAVE to condemn me
to hell for my present mindset. If He exists, He does so of his OWN free
will. He's making a choice to cause eternal pain and misery just because I
don't want to be friends with Him. Here on earth, we call people like that
stalkers and put them in prison for it.
> we call these, spoiled little brats, and we send them to reform school.
Yes, but we don't burn them alive or torture them for it, do we?
> and if they remain spoiled little brats we feed them to dogs.
I don't know where you live, but here in America, we may send them to
juvenile detention or in extreme cases, prison, but I can't recall a single
incident of parents/authorities actually feeding a spoiled brat to dogs. But
hey, that's an idea right in keeping with your "loving" Christian theology--
at least you're consistent. I'll give you that much.
> after all, that's what they wanted in the first place.
What I wanted in the first place was (and is) just to be left alone by you
people.
If you want to go to church on Sunday and worship some invisible sky-pixie,
I have no problem with that. But when you start trying to legislate prayer
in public schools for not only your children, but mine, when you start
trying use the courts to censor everything from books and movies to the
Internet, offering only "the Bible" as your justification to do so, when you
repeatedly wake me up on Sunday morning with a knock on my door in order to
"witness" to me and "save" me, then I get rather annoyed and tend to take
pro-active measures against your interference in my life.
(Oh, and when I use the word "you" in the above paragraph, I'm referring to
a collective "you", not you personally since I doubt you were the one
evangelizing in my neighborhood.)