Jesus comes to earth
Dave Haas
How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
you to believe? What kind of miracle?
D. Haas
Cory Collins
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in article
<MPG.11d716d68...@news.campuscwix.net>...
The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned to
His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the identity
of the one in question.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in article
><MPG.11d716d68...@news.campuscwix.net>...
>
>> How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>> Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>
>> him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>> black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>> you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
>The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned to
>His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit.
Vis ist das "spirit"?
> Any who might doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the identity
>of the one in question.
Vas ist das "holy ghost"?
And why do you think belief and understanding comes before evidence?
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
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"
Michael Alexander
and he matched John Hagee's description of the anti-Christ. Would followers
of John Hagee kill him?
Jay
Dave Haas wrote in message ...
>
>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
Ahhhh, a good point that illustrates that Christians really don't believe in
the literal presence of a creator since none of them would know what to look
for it collided with their thick skulls.
Jay
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
>
>
>Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in article
><MPG.11d716d68...@news.campuscwix.net>...
>
>> How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>> Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>
>> him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>> black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>> you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
>The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned to
>His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
>doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the identity
>of the one in question.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC minister #3
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
Lacking theistic belief since 1959
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by
the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will
be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
brain of Jupiter.
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 --
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Cory Collins
Michelle Malkin wrote
Cory Collins wrote
> >The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned
to
> >His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
> >doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
identity
> >of the one in question.
> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Michelle Malkin
Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
- [ $mokey ] -
(Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:
>
>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
>D. Haas
Something like this doesn't belong in alt.atheism, it only asks for
trouble.
Please don't try to convert them, they're too hardheaded.
they won't realize you can never prove faith
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Michelle Malkin wrote
> Cory Collins wrote
>> >The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned
>to
>> >His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
>> >doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
>identity
>> >of the one in question.
>
>> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
And how does he do that?
ath...@home.com
Malkin) wrote:
>On 20 Jun 1999 22:26:07 GMT, "Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in article
>><MPG.11d716d68...@news.campuscwix.net>...
>>
>>> How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>>> Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>>
>>> him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>>> black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>>> you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>>
>>The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned to
>>His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
>>doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the identity
>>of the one in question.
>>
>>In Jesus' Name,
>>Cory
>
>And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
Well common sense would dictate that the doubter contact GhostBusters
at 555-6666
They have the equipment, they have the drive...and best of all...they
have a money back guaranty
Pick up the phone and give em' a call.
Remember...
If you want a ghost...
GhostBusters will find you one :)
GhostBusters..
555-6666
(Ask for Damon in new accounts).
ath...@home.com#1554
ath...@home.com
] -) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
>(Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:
>
>>
>>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>>
>>D. Haas
>
>Something like this doesn't belong in alt.atheism, it only asks for
>trouble.
>
>Please don't try to convert them, they're too hardheaded.
>
>they won't realize you can never prove faith
We know you can "prove" your faith,
but we also know you can't validate it :)
>
Raptor514
> > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>
What a COP OUT!!! That's the most pathetic ignorance I've heard in a
looong time. Let me guess, you felt all pious and mushy inside when you
came up with that nitwit logic didn't you?
Raptor514
> Something like this doesn't belong in alt.atheism, it only asks for
> trouble.
>
> Please don't try to convert them, they're too hardheaded.
>
> they won't realize you can never prove faith
On the contrary, we are perfectly aware that you can't "prove faith." It's
the hypocritical pseudo-rational posturing of Xians that gets to me. If
you're going to be irrational go ahead. Just be honest about you
irrationality and leave the rest of us alone.
Peter Kelly
our times Cory Collins<wyt...@silverstar.com> did eloquently compose:
>
>
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in article
> <MPG.11d716d68...@news.campuscwix.net>...
>
> > How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
> > Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>
> > him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
> > black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
> > you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
> The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned to
> His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
> doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the identity
> of the one in question.
>
In other words you make it up as you go. How do you distinguish
between your own imagination and the holy spirit? The problem is
that anything that can be experienced can also be imagined and
anything imagined can be believed as real. Just look at false memory
syndrome.
--
#1417 rot-13 on email reply
EAC Director of Cryptography Services
Internet Censorship - book burning of the 90's
Go to http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/99.html
to stop the draconian Internet censorship legislation
set for debate in the Australian Senate on Monday
24th May 1999.
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://www.newave.net.au/~neko/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
ath...@home.com
>
>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
You know I actually once wondered (I was a kid and can't be blamed for
thinking this and I'm snockered now and still can't be blamed for
writing it), what would happen if word came down that some ugly,
tattoed, pudgy little three foot tall pigmy on some tropical island
somewhere was healing the sick, raising the dead and claiming to be
the son of God and a bunch of scientists and religious folks went to
investigate and came back with proof that it was true, what would
people think? Would we get things like "I ain't gonna worship no
damned, sawed-off little runt pigmy and I don't give a damn who he is?
Would we try to explain to to the backward little twit how things are
supposed to be, that he doesn't quite fit the image and should
probably find another trade? Ever notice how all our movie heroes are
pretty boys (With very few exceptions) who hate to have their hair
mussed and couldn't sweat if they tried and all our movie heroines are
built like sh**t brickhouses? I once knew this incredibly beautiful
human female who was born with portions of her epidermis missing
(There is a name for it I just can't recall what it is) and teeth that
would put a great white shark to shame but who wouldn't take any crap
off anybody. Tough as nails she was, and as gentle and loving as the
Christ to her friends and family. I spent 18 years in emergency
services and have seen heroes and heroines in every shape, size and
color, but most of them never fit the image and could never have made
it in Hollywood.
Weird-ass world.
>D. Haas
Nat and Al Enquire
Certainly, if one is to reply to such a thread as Mr. Haas has begun, and if
one is going to cross post to alt.atheism, it will take something more
compelling than, "The Holy Spirit will tell me it's really Jesus." This
kind of reply only invites antagonism. We have a reasonable faith and are
supposed to be ready to give a reason for the hope we have within us. This
is really an appeal to feelings.
Now let's say we take the atheist position for a moment. We (as an
atheist) feel that anything supernatural is, at the minimum, suspect, and
most likely is just plain dismissable. You tell me you will know it is
Jesus because of the witness of the Holy Spirit. We would ask (as has been
rightly done in the context of this thread) What is this thing called the
Holy Spirit? Someone asked, "How would you verify the Holy Ghost?" Fair
question. We don't even know what "He will verify Himself" is supposed to
communicate to someone who doesn't believe there is a "He" to do the
verifying. How do you convince such a person you are not simply validating
your own delusions? (That is what most of our honorable adversaries think,
you know.)
The way we understand it, you verify the Spirit by testing him. Is He
acting consistent with the data that He is already associated with, or
contrary. Is he glorifying the Father or competing. We think that is the
answer, but we don't think that is going to compel anyone to change their
point of view. This is really an unproductive tangent begun by your appeal
to the witness of the Holy Spirit. It just doesn't respect the scope of
this newsgroup, IOHO.
Now, how would we recognize Jesus at his return (based on scripture, we
expect him to return only once. We have no reason to expect intermediate
appearances.) The Bible (whatever one thinks of its contents) suggests
quite strongly that the return of Christ will be unmistakable and not a
topic for debate. Apocalyptic language is used, but there is no
misunderstanding the intent. He will be accompanied by angels: Matt 25:31,
Mark 8:38, 1 Thess 1:7; the armies of heaven: Rev. 19:11; blazing fire: 2
Thess 1:7; clouds of heaven: Dan. 7:13, Matt 24:30, 26:64, Acts 1:9-11, Rev.
1:7; cosmic phenomena: Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24-25, Luke 21:25-26, Acts
2:19-20, 2 Pet. 3:10, Revelation 6:12-14; the gathering of the saints unto
Jesus: Matt 24:31, Mark 13:27, 1 Cor. 15:50-57, 1 Thess 4:16-17, Rev.
19:6-9; a loud command: 1 Thess. 4:16; a multitude of holy followers: 1
Thess 3:13, Jude 14; the trumpet call of God: 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess. 4:16;
and finally (whew!) the voice of the archangel: 1 Thess. 4:16.
We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the answer was
intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information. This
information is of use only to believers. It can serve as a warning to those
who don't share our belief, but it is not, in our opinion, the first line of
appeal. No one who does not believe that God is and rewards those who
diligently seek Him will see any of these verses as anything but myth.
Until you recognize that Jesus is the creator of all things and took a
punishment we justly deserved in order that we could be reconciled to God,
this is the answer, but it will read as mumbo-jumbo.
We know that, because that's where we were in 1969. We were even
interviewed by our school newspaper regarding our outspoken advocacy of
naturalism. We are pleased it never got beyond the galley sheets (judgment
of faculty advisor), because we think we were quite persuasive.
Dear brother, these questions deserve reasonable answers. We have tried to
give one. We don't think this is a question that can really lead anywhere,
but we hope Mr. Haas believes is question has been answered, even if it is
exclusively in reference to scriptures. And, Mr. Hass, if you were truly
interested in the answer and we have misjudged you, please accept our
humble apologies. (And finally, Mr. Hass, we hope your head is feeling
better after that steel pan incident).
--
Respectfully,
Nat and Al
To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
- [ $mokey ] - <lage...@pourmeone.com> wrote in message
news:376fcb93.5649168@news...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
> (Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:
>
> >
> >How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
> >Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
> >him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
> >black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
> >you to believe? What kind of miracle?
> >
> >D. Haas
Nat and Al Enquire
---We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the question
was intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information.---
And we repeat, if we misjudge Mr. Haas, we apologize.
--
Respectfully (and with some embarrassment),
Nat and Al
To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
Nat and Al Enquire <Nat_and_Al_...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7kkp8c$60b$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> Excuse our buttinskying (is that a word?)
----snip---
> We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the answer
was
> intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information.
----snip---
John Hattan
>Michelle Malkin wrote
> Cory Collins wrote
>>>The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned
>>>to
>>>His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
>>>doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
>>>identity of the one in question.
>
>> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
toys is self-evident.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@bigfoot.com http://www.bitsmart.com/shatner
Dave Haas
Nat_and_Al_...@att.net says...
> Excuse our buttinskying (is that a word?)
>
> intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information.
This question was not intended to start flame wars. It was intended to
gain an understanding into the mind of the theist. The reason it was
cross posted was because we all (atheists and theists) are thinking human
human beings and I thought that it would give the different groups some
insight into how belief is rationalized. Many atheists and apparently
theists did not recall the verses from the bible which announce the
second coming.
As you said (whew!) after listing them. I think the reason I did not
remember these (I know I read them years ago) was that they were not
relevant to my experience and only bring up more questions. Like where
and what is a loud command? Not to mention angles and fire. You are
right to say this is read as mumbo-jumbo. But it does not really answer
the question. If those things happen as you describe will they be
observed by everybody on earth at the same time? or in a localized place
as miracles seem to have occurred in the past? Will the angles look like
angles as pictured in the 17th century or like aliens? In other words
how do you know what an angel looks like? Same goes for all the other
signs. These are not specific as to extent or location. As far as the
holy followers, well, where are they from and how do they know and when
did they know it?
In this respect according to the bible Jesus preformed miracles for a few
people living in the Middle East and that was it. What about the rest of
the world?
And as far as being a little addled. I'm not the one who believes in the
mumbo jumbo.:) This brings up another question. If you know it sounds
like magic or something impossible how can you believe it? I'm serious.
D. Haas
> This
> information is of use only to believers. It can serve as a warning to those
> who don't share our belief, but it is not, in our opinion, the first line of
> appeal. No one who does not believe that God is and rewards those who
> diligently seek Him will see any of these verses as anything but myth.
> Until you recognize that Jesus is the creator of all things and took a
> punishment we justly deserved in order that we could be reconciled to God,
> this is the answer, but it will read as mumbo-jumbo.
>
> We know that, because that's where we were in 1969. We were even
> interviewed by our school newspaper regarding our outspoken advocacy of
> naturalism. We are pleased it never got beyond the galley sheets (judgment
> of faculty advisor), because we think we were quite persuasive.
>
> Dear brother, these questions deserve reasonable answers. We have tried to
> give one. We don't think this is a question that can really lead anywhere,
> but we hope Mr. Haas believes is question has been answered, even if it is
> exclusively in reference to scriptures. And, Mr. Hass, if you were truly
> interested in the answer and we have misjudged you, please accept our
> humble apologies. (And finally, Mr. Hass, we hope your head is feeling
> better after that steel pan incident).
> --
> Respectfully,
>
> Nat and Al
>
> To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
Robibnikoff
"Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
> Michelle Malkin wrote
> Cory Collins wrote
> > >The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned
> to
> > >His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
> > >doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
> identity
> > >of the one in question.
>
> > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
> I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
> Cory
>
Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Marilyn Bellotti
average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
ath...@home.com wrote in message <376dd968.362472964@news-server>...
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
>(Dave Haas) wrote:
>
>>
>>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>
Fish
> Michelle Malkin wrote
> > "Cory Collins" wrote:
> > >Michelle Malkin wrote
> > >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
> > Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
>
> On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
The Voice in Cory's "mind": "I am the Holy Ghost! I have come to verify
the existence of God and Jesus Christ for you!"
Cory (speaking to self): "How do I know you're *THE* Holy Ghost and not
some impostor or that I'm not hallucinating?"
TVIC's"M": "Well, er, I, uh, VERIFY MYSELF TOO! I verify for you I am who
I say I am! HONEST!"
Cory: "Duh! That's good enough for me!"
Cory (to others): "God is real! He really exists! He *verified* he's real
to me! Nyah! You stupid atheists don't know nuthin! God is real 'cause
he's been *verified* to exist!"
<sigh>
You're an idiot, Cory.
Now go into the bathroom, stand in front of the mirror, take a pair of
sharp scissors, look at yourself long and hard and then begin jabbing
yourself in the ear of your choice just as hard as you can, all the while
repeating "I'm an idiot! I'm an idiot!" over and over until I tell you to
stop. Eventually it might sink in.
Don't worry. Just keep doing it. I'll tell you when to stop.
Trust me.
:)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Christianity ~ arguably the most vile, depraved,
hypocritical and dishonest perversion of human nature
ever to seep from the mind of man." -- Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Michelle Malkin
] -) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
>(Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:
>
>>
>>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>>
>>D. Haas
>
>Something like this doesn't belong in alt.atheism, it only asks for
>trouble.
>
>Please don't try to convert them, they're too hardheaded.
>
>they won't realize you can never prove faith
>
We do believe that you believe. It's what you believe that you can't
prove to us. Hard-headedness has nothing to do with it. Faith is not
evidence. And, you are right, your religion doesn't belong in
alt.atheism.
Robert Chapman
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
> Michelle Malkin wrote
> Cory Collins wrote
> > >The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are attuned
> to
> > >His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
> > >doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
> identity
> > >of the one in question.
>
> > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
> I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
Would you also say that a tree verifies itself? Of course not, so
describe your verification of the Holy Ghost the same way you would
describe your verification of a tree.
Rob
Cory Collins
Robibnikoff > wrote >...
> > snip< <
> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Robert Chapman
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
How will you verify that he has 'shown' you?
Rob
Cory Collins
Don Kresch scratched
> Cory Collins etched
> >Michelle Malkin wrote
> > Cory Collins wrote
> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> And how does he do that?
Very well! Try Him yourself.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Michelle Malkin wrote
> "Cory Collins" wrote:
> >Michelle Malkin wrote
> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Raptor514 wrote
> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> What a COP OUT!!! That's the most pathetic ignorance I've heard in a
> looong time. Let me guess, you felt all pious and mushy inside when you
> came up with that nitwit logic didn't you?
Only the ignorant point to what they don't understand as being ignorance.
That which is rejected without evidence, is rejected ignorantly.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
John Hattan wrote
> "Cory Collins" wrote:
> >Michelle Malkin wrote
> >snip< <
> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
> toys is self-evident.
So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Peter Kelly wrote
> Cory Collins did eloquently compose:
> > snip< <
> > The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are
attuned to
> > His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
> > doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
identity
> > of the one in question.
> In other words you make it up as you go.
Nope.
>How do you distinguish
> between your own imagination and the holy spirit? The problem is
> that anything that can be experienced can also be imagined and
> anything imagined can be believed as real. Just look at false memory
> syndrome.
And, by extension, anything which can be experienced can be real....
including the Holy Spirit. Just look at the "real memory" syndrome.
How do you distinguish between eating a real meal, and dreaming that you
ate one?
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Michelle Malkin
<mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just an
>average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
>
Paul was a wacko and a con man. The Devil doesn't exist. Prove
otherwise.
>
>
>
>ath...@home.com wrote in message <376dd968.362472964@news-server>...
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
>>(Dave Haas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
>>>Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
>>>him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
>>>black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
>>>you to believe? What kind of miracle?
>>
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>
>> > snip< <
>> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
>Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
Avoiding the question again? You theists are very bad at this. You
always get caught.
redrum
rob...@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>In article <01bebc59$88a9e760$2843170c@corycoll>, "Cory Collins"
><wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>> Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>>
>> > > snip< <
>> > Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>>
>> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
>>
>> In Jesus' Name,
>> Cory
>
>
>Rob
I did. He didn't. Next...
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Michelle Malkin wrote
>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
>
>On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
What it constitutes is an avoidance. You weren't able to answer the
question.
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Don Kresch scratched
>> Cory Collins etched
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> > Cory Collins wrote
>
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> And how does he do that?
>
>Very well! Try Him yourself.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
That's kind of hard to do with something that doesn't exist.
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Raptor514 wrote
>
>> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> What a COP OUT!!! That's the most pathetic ignorance I've heard in a
>> looong time. Let me guess, you felt all pious and mushy inside when you
>> came up with that nitwit logic didn't you?
>
>Only the ignorant point to what they don't understand as being ignorance.
>That which is rejected without evidence, is rejected ignorantly.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
You have it backwards, chum. That which is believed in without
evidence is believed in ignorantly.
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Hattan wrote
>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> >snip< <
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
>> toys is self-evident.
>
>So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
>The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
Neither, since neither exists. Present your evidence that your God,
Jesus as a god and Holy Ghost exist. Faith is not an acceptable
answer, since it exists only in your own mind.
Robibnikoff
"Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>
> > > snip< <
> > Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
>
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
>
And maybe you have no idea, because you don't know how he'd "verify himself"
- Thanks for playing. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster #1557
Nicholas Wren
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Hattan wrote
>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> >snip< <
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
John Hattan:
>> Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
>> toys is self-evident.
Cory Collins:
>So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
>The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
Which raises an interesting question. Does one actually communicate
with you?
If Jesus has personally contacted you, I can understand why you would
have a very good reason to believe in him.
And when he personally contacts the rest of us here, we'll have good
reason to believe in him too. In the meantime, don't be too surprised
if we don't accept on faith that which you yourself don't have to
accept on faith.
Nick
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Don Kresch scratched
>> Cory Collins etched
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> > Cory Collins wrote
>
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> And how does he do that?
>
>Very well! Try Him yourself.
<trying>
<nothing>
Ok. I tried. Nothing happened.
Cory, HayZeus is a myth and there is no such thing as god.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
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"
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Raptor514 wrote
>
>> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> What a COP OUT!!! That's the most pathetic ignorance I've heard in a
>> looong time. Let me guess, you felt all pious and mushy inside when you
>> came up with that nitwit logic didn't you?
>
>Only the ignorant point to what they don't understand as being ignorance.
Ignorance is attributing one thing to another.
>That which is rejected without evidence, is rejected ignorantly.
But since we have evidence, you lose.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>John Hattan wrote
>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> >snip< <
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
>> toys is self-evident.
>
>So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
>The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
Neither, since neither of them exist.
And Cory, you've never stated with what sense you use to communicate with
your god.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Michelle Malkin wrote
>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
>
>On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
It constitutes a cop-out.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Peter Kelly wrote
>> Cory Collins did eloquently compose:
>> > snip< <
>> > The recognition of Jesus would not come visually. Those who are
>attuned to
>> > His spirit constantly will recognize Him BY that spirit. Any who might
>> > doubt or hesitate, need only ask for the Holy Ghost to verify the
>identity
>> > of the one in question.
>
>> In other words you make it up as you go.
>
>Nope.
We know better, Cory. We've whacked your fellow xers so many times, we
know you're just making it up.
> >How do you distinguish
>> between your own imagination and the holy spirit? The problem is
>> that anything that can be experienced can also be imagined and
>> anything imagined can be believed as real. Just look at false memory
>> syndrome.
>
>And, by extension, anything which can be experienced can be real....
>including the Holy Spirit.
That begs the question of the existence os such a thing.
> Just look at the "real memory" syndrome.
>How do you distinguish between eating a real meal, and dreaming that you
>ate one?
Nice evasion, Cory.
Robibnikoff
"Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
> John Hattan wrote
> > "Cory Collins" wrote:
> > >Michelle Malkin wrote
> > >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
> > toys is self-evident.
>
> So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
> The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
>
Cory - I know I said I'd stop debating with you, but I'm on my lunch hour, a
bit bored, and I'm sorry but it's just too tempting. I'm curious - does the
Holy Ghost communicate with you? Do you hear him speaking to you? Because if
you're hearing disembodied voices talking to you, I would get thee hence to
thy nearest mental health practicioner, as hearing voices is one of the first
symptoms of schizophrenia. I'm not telling you this to be irreverent or
disrespectful; I used to work for the Dept. of Psychiatry at a university
teaching hospital and have a little knowledge on the subject.
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Excuse our buttinskying (is that a word?)
It must be. Could've sworn I read it in some post just a second ago.
: Now let's say we take the atheist position for a moment.
<stands up, balances on left foot, hooks right foot behind left knee,
puts right arm behind head and sticks pinkie of right hand into left ear>
Make it quick, will ya? This ain't comfortable!
(Geez, I gotta lobby for the adoption of a better position next EAC
meeting. Like doggy-style, or something, 'cause it stands to reason
that atheists tend to eschew the missionary position.)
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
stoney
<mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
[>Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just an
[>average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
What 'grace and mercy?' The individual who steals livestock. The individual
who has come to turn younger family members against their elders. The
individual who indicates that a person can't follow him unless they hate
their parents, brothers and sisters, themselves and even life itself. This
destroys the commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother.
Hatred is not a family value.
And this is the same character who, later in the book, comes back for
an orgy of genocide that would make the old Popes cream their cassoks.
This is the same character that 'has an offer you can't refuse.' Refuse,
or make an error, or just for the hell of it, it'll toss you into 'flames that
will not be quenched[tm]' for eternity.
No grace, character, or anything other than meglomania. Hitler was
a swaddling baby with delusions of incompetance by comparison.
[snip]
Stoney
Elroy Willis
>How do you distinguish between eating a real meal, and dreaming
>that you ate one?
When I eat a real meal, I usually feel like taking a dump shortly
thereafter.
--
Elroy Willis
BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
>Too late at night, obviously. We meant to say:
>---We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the question
>was intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information.---
>And we repeat, if we misjudge Mr. Haas, we apologize.
What's up with the "we" business? I see two names in your
email address. Are you Nat or Al? Or are your responses
a calaborative effort by the two of you?
Elroy Willis
>rob...@ihug.co.nz says...
>>Cory Collins <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>>> Robibnikoff > wrote...
>>>> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>>> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
>>How will you verify that he has 'shown' you?
You'll suddenly believe that serpents can talk.
>I did. He didn't. Next...
Me either.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>
>> > snip< <
>> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
>Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
Maybe if you'd stop copping-out and actually answer this question, we'd
stop asking.
J. Michael Phillips
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:37952e14...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:08:16 GMT, "Cory Collins"
> <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote
***snip***
> >> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >
> >> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> >
> >> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
> >
> >On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
> >
> >In Jesus' Name,
> >Cory
>
> What it constitutes is an avoidance. You weren't able to answer the
> question.
Sorry, Michelle, he answered the question. He answered cryptically, but he answered nonetheless. As chagrined as I am at his "answer," he did answer. Saying he didn't is incorrect. He did not, however supply sufficient information to make his answer make sense, even to another Christian (I'm speaking of myself here). The appropriate response to him at this point would be:
"What the heck does ***THAT*** mean?" The implication may be painfully obvious to you, Cory - but for the rest of us, your answer is tantamount to a non-answer.
J. Michael Phillips
Afraid I have to disagree with one thing, however. Not so much by disputing your scripture references. They are accurate, but there will come a time when the Antichrist will appear, and he will come in similar fashion, to deceive the very elect. The *real* second coming will be unmistakable to the faithful, but the "false starts" will no be so easily dismissed, don't you think?
Nat and Al Enquire <Nat_and_Al_...@att.net> wrote in message news:7kkp8c$60b$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> Excuse our buttinskying (is that a word?)
>
> Certainly, if one is to reply to such a thread as Mr. Haas has begun, and if
> one is going to cross post to alt.atheism, it will take something more
> compelling than, "The Holy Spirit will tell me it's really Jesus." This
> kind of reply only invites antagonism. We have a reasonable faith and are
> supposed to be ready to give a reason for the hope we have within us. This
> is really an appeal to feelings.
>
> Now let's say we take the atheist position for a moment. We (as an
> atheist) feel that anything supernatural is, at the minimum, suspect, and
> most likely is just plain dismissable. You tell me you will know it is
> Jesus because of the witness of the Holy Spirit. We would ask (as has been
> rightly done in the context of this thread) What is this thing called the
> Holy Spirit? Someone asked, "How would you verify the Holy Ghost?" Fair
> question. We don't even know what "He will verify Himself" is supposed to
> communicate to someone who doesn't believe there is a "He" to do the
> verifying. How do you convince such a person you are not simply validating
> your own delusions? (That is what most of our honorable adversaries think,
> you know.)
>
> The way we understand it, you verify the Spirit by testing him. Is He
> acting consistent with the data that He is already associated with, or
> contrary. Is he glorifying the Father or competing. We think that is the
> answer, but we don't think that is going to compel anyone to change their
> point of view. This is really an unproductive tangent begun by your appeal
> to the witness of the Holy Spirit. It just doesn't respect the scope of
> this newsgroup, IOHO.
>
> Now, how would we recognize Jesus at his return (based on scripture, we
> expect him to return only once. We have no reason to expect intermediate
> appearances.) The Bible (whatever one thinks of its contents) suggests
> quite strongly that the return of Christ will be unmistakable and not a
> topic for debate. Apocalyptic language is used, but there is no
> misunderstanding the intent. He will be accompanied by angels: Matt 25:31,
> Mark 8:38, 1 Thess 1:7; the armies of heaven: Rev. 19:11; blazing fire: 2
> Thess 1:7; clouds of heaven: Dan. 7:13, Matt 24:30, 26:64, Acts 1:9-11, Rev.
> 1:7; cosmic phenomena: Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24-25, Luke 21:25-26, Acts
> 2:19-20, 2 Pet. 3:10, Revelation 6:12-14; the gathering of the saints unto
> Jesus: Matt 24:31, Mark 13:27, 1 Cor. 15:50-57, 1 Thess 4:16-17, Rev.
> 19:6-9; a loud command: 1 Thess. 4:16; a multitude of holy followers: 1
> Thess 3:13, Jude 14; the trumpet call of God: 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess. 4:16;
> and finally (whew!) the voice of the archangel: 1 Thess. 4:16.
>
> We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the answer was
> intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information. This
> information is of use only to believers. It can serve as a warning to those
> who don't share our belief, but it is not, in our opinion, the first line of
> appeal. No one who does not believe that God is and rewards those who
> diligently seek Him will see any of these verses as anything but myth.
> Until you recognize that Jesus is the creator of all things and took a
> punishment we justly deserved in order that we could be reconciled to God,
> this is the answer, but it will read as mumbo-jumbo.
>
> We know that, because that's where we were in 1969. We were even
> interviewed by our school newspaper regarding our outspoken advocacy of
> naturalism. We are pleased it never got beyond the galley sheets (judgment
> of faculty advisor), because we think we were quite persuasive.
>
> Dear brother, these questions deserve reasonable answers. We have tried to
> give one. We don't think this is a question that can really lead anywhere,
> but we hope Mr. Haas believes is question has been answered, even if it is
> exclusively in reference to scriptures. And, Mr. Hass, if you were truly
> interested in the answer and we have misjudged you, please accept our
> humble apologies. (And finally, Mr. Hass, we hope your head is feeling
> better after that steel pan incident).
> --
> Respectfully,
>
> Nat and Al
>
> To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
> - [ $mokey ] - <lage...@pourmeone.com> wrote in message
> news:376fcb93.5649168@news...
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
> > (Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:
> >
> > >
> > >How would you know if a man was really Jesus Christ? In other words if
> > >Jesus came to earth and was living in your city how could you tell it was
> > >him. We have no paintings or pictures of the real Jesus. So if he was
> > >black, could you take his word? Would he have to perform a miracle for
> > >you to believe? What kind of miracle?
> > >
> > >D. Haas
> >
> > Something like this doesn't belong in alt.atheism, it only asks for
> > trouble.
> >
> > Please don't try to convert them, they're too hardheaded.
> >
> > they won't realize you can never prove faith
> >
> >
>
>
J. Michael Phillips
Elroy Willis <e...@cyberramp.net> wrote in message news:F0FF5563ACFBBA2A.6EED447A...@lp.airnews.net...
> Nat and Al Enquire <Nat_and_Al_...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Too late at night, obviously. We meant to say:
>
> >---We think this is the answer to the question asked. We think the question
> >was intended to provoke, rather than to seriously request information.---
>
> >And we repeat, if we misjudge Mr. Haas, we apologize.
>
> What's up with the "we" business? I see two names in your
> email address. Are you Nat or Al? Or are your responses
> a calaborative effort by the two of you?
The Papal "we?"
J. Michael Phillips
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message news:MPG.11d7fbdec...@news.campuscwix.net...
***snip***
>
> And as far as being a little addled. I'm not the one who believes in the
> mumbo jumbo.:) This brings up another question. If you know it sounds
> like magic or something impossible how can you believe it? I'm serious.
How do you *not* believe in "magic?" I'm serious, too.
What if I told you that I could make someone "magically" disappear, and then reappear 3 floors higher? To people before about 1900, that would sound like "magic." today, we call it an elevator.
J. Michael Phillips
Cory Collins <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote in message news:01bebc64$db8f36a0$9443170c@corycoll...
>
>
> Don Kresch scratched
> > Cory Collins etched
> > > Cory Collins wrote
>
>
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>
> Very well! Try Him yourself
Interesting play on words. However, it would be useful if you would simply answer the question asked instead of making "cute" plays on words.
Please keep in mind - this is coming from a fellow Christian. Your answer imparts no information in usable form - only info regarding your mindset.
J. Michael Phillips
Don Kresch <rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com> wrote in message news:3771925b...@news.usenetserver.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:08:24 GMT, in alt.atheism, Cory Collins etched in the
> space-time continuum
***snip***
>
> >That which is rejected without evidence, is rejected ignorantly.
>
> But since we have evidence, you lose.
***Implied "evidence" is that there is definitively ***no*** God***
Please provide your "evidence," Don - or were you just talking out of turn?
J. Michael Phillips
Marilyn Bellotti <mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message news:7kmd7k$j82$1...@news01.li.net...
> Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just an
> average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
I assume you mean "funny" as in "strange," and not "funny" as in "humorous."
Oddly enough, I find it neither humorous nor strange. It makes more sense to me than the popular images of good and evil.
You don't want to know of my experience of beauty and Lucifer (Satan, whatever). It literally caused horipilation - not only to me, but to my friend as well . . .
J. Michael Phillips
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:378d1cc8...@news.mindspring.com...
> >average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
> >
> otherwise.
***YAWN***
Paul was a messenger of God. The Devil exists, and is a powerful force in Michelle's life. Prove otherwise
J. Michael Phillips
Cory Collins <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote in message news:01bebc64$dfd85200$9443170c@corycoll...
> > >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
> > Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
> > toys is self-evident.
>
> So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
> The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
One Christian to another:
Please describe this communication. Can you understand both my and the atheist's concern? Jim Jones received communication from "God" and "Jesus." Neither the atheist nor I believe that Jim Jones was sane. Your description so far is indistinguishable from Jim's. How does anyone know the difference?
Please be aware: I'm not trying to "bust your chops." I am hoping that you'll see the legitimate concerns of your audience.
>
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
J. Michael Phillips
Robert Chapman <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:robertc-2206...@news.ihug.co.nz...
***snip***
> >
> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >
> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
> Would you also say that a tree verifies itself? Of course not, so
> describe your verification of the Holy Ghost the same way you would
> describe your verification of a tree.
How do you verify that *this* dogwood is a tree, and not a bush?
J. Michael Phillips
Cory Collins <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote in message news:01bebc59$88a9e760$2843170c@corycoll...
>
>
> Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>
> > > snip< <
> > Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
Then again, maybe He won't. The ecclesiastical history of God made Manifest is sketchy at best. God's policy seems to be one of status quo. Aside from direct revelation, how does one discern the presence of God?
>
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
Nat and Al Enquirer
Thank you for your interest.
--
Respectfully,
Nat and Al
To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
J. Michael Phillips <Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#bJcMoRv#GA.281@cpmsnbbsa03...
Nat and Al Enquirer
Say, this is much easier if you add touching the wall with your elbow.
--
Respectfully,
Nat and Al 8-D
To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
<cz...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:376fb...@ecn.ab.ca...
Cory Collins
Robibnikoff wrote in article
> snip<
> Cory - I know I said I'd stop debating with you, but I'm on my lunch
hour, a
> bit bored, and I'm sorry but it's just too tempting. I'm curious - does
the
> Holy Ghost communicate with you?
On occasion.
>Do you hear him speaking to you?
Nope. No sound.
> Because if
> you're hearing disembodied voices talking to you,.......
"Disembodied" implies that one had a body to begin with. The Holy Spirit
has not ever had one so far as I know.
> ........... I used to work for the Dept. of Psychiatry at a university
> teaching hospital and have a little knowledge on the subject.
I hope none of it rubbed off on you.
Now that you've succumbed to temptation, you can go back to work, now.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Elroy Willis wrote in article
> na...@na.da (redrum) wrote:
> >rob...@ihug.co.nz says...
> >>Cory Collins wrote:
> >>> Robibnikoff > wrote...
> >>>> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
> >>> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
> >>How will you verify that he has 'shown' you?
> You'll suddenly believe that serpents can talk.
I doubt that. I don't.
> >I did. He didn't. Next...
> Me either.
Too bad. You both missed out. Maybe it was due to your presentation.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Don Kresch scratched
> Cory Collins etched
> >Robibnikoff > wrote >...
> >> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
> >Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
> Maybe if you'd stop copping-out and actually answer this question, we'd
> stop asking.
Direct experience is worth a thousand descriptions.
(similar to; a picture is worth a thousand words)
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
Elroy Willis wrote in article
> Cory Collins wrote:
> >How do you distinguish between eating a real meal, and dreaming
> >that you ate one?
> When I eat a real meal, I usually feel like taking a dump shortly
> thereafter.
You musta just finished one.
In Jesus' Name.
Cory
Michelle Malkin
rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:08:28 GMT, in alt.atheism, Cory Collins etched in the
>space-time continuum
>
>>
>>
>>John Hattan wrote
>>> "Cory Collins" wrote:
>>> >Michelle Malkin wrote
>>> >snip< <
>>> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>>
>>> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>>
>>> Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag of
>>> toys is self-evident.
>>
>>So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
>>The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
>
> Neither, since neither of them exist.
>
> And Cory, you've never stated with what sense you use to communicate with
>your god.
His nonsense.
>
>Don
>alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
>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"
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC minister #3
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
Lacking theistic belief since 1959
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by
the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will
be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
brain of Jupiter.
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 --
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin
Another non-response. Why? Because Marilyn has nothing to back up her
words. She is merely a female version of Cory. In other words - a
troll.
Michelle Malkin
<Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Sorry, Michelle, you're wrong . . .
>
>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:37952e14...@news.mindspring.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:08:16 GMT, "Cory Collins"
>> <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote
>
>***snip***
>
>> >> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>> >
>> >> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>> >
>> >> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
>> >
>> >On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
>> >
>> >In Jesus' Name,
>> >Cory
>>
>> What it constitutes is an avoidance. You weren't able to answer the
>> question.
>
>Sorry, Michelle, he answered the question. He answered cryptically, but he answered nonetheless. As chagrined as I am at his "answer," he did answer. Saying he didn't is incorrect. He did not, however supply sufficient information to make his answer make sense, even to another Christian (I'm speaking of myself here). The appropriate response to him at this point would be:
>
>"What the heck does ***THAT*** mean?" The implication may be painfully obvious to you, Cory - but for the rest of us, your answer is tantamount to a non-answer.
>
>
That was his cop-out. He is writing pure nonsense that he knows is
pure nonsense. Cory is a troll. If he doesn't give an understandable
response by the end of the week, maybe sooner, depending on the
quality of his responses, I'm killfiling him. He started out as
possibly interesting, but has been rapidly degenerating to total waste
of time.
Javacrucian
Michelle Malkin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:08:21 GMT, "Cory Collins"
> <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Kresch scratched
> >> Cory Collins etched
> >> >Michelle Malkin wrote
> >> > Cory Collins wrote
> >
> >> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >
> >> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> >
> >> And how does he do that?
> >
> >Very well! Try Him yourself.
> >
> >In Jesus' Name,
> >Cory
FYI-- I did try the holy ghost, for the first time, earlier this
evening. It lit well, but was fairly harsh and tasted a bit stale
(perhaps it was old). I felt indwelt for maybe an hour, then was left
with little more than a headache and cotton mouth. Left a funny residue
in my bowl too. All in all a less than average experience; I would only
recommend trying HG if your other sources are dry and you really feel
like "burning bush". (I'm told that HG works best when mixed with JC
and GTF in equal proportions, but nobody I know can explain how this
works.) ;)
Cheers,
Javacrucian
Cory Collins
J. Michael Phillips wrote
Sorry, Michelle, you're wrong . . .
Michelle Malkin wrote
> "Cory Collins" wrote
> >> >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> >> >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> >> Just as I expected. You weren't able to answer the question.
> >On the contrary: "I wouldn't", constitutes an answer.
> What it constitutes is an avoidance. You weren't able to answer the
question.
:Sorry, Michelle, he answered the question. He answered cryptically, but
he :answered nonetheless. As chagrined as I am at his "answer," he did
answer. :Saying he didn't is incorrect. He did not, however supply
sufficient information to :make his answer make sense, even to another
Christian (I'm speaking of myself :here). The appropriate response to him
at this point would be:........>snip<
Well, Michael, any Christian would/should know that the Holy Ghost is
spirit, and that spirits cannot be proven in a physical world except by
their own actions. The Father, the Son, and/or the Holy Ghost are each
powerful enough to manifest themselves in a physical sense. But, you and I
are not powerful enough to do the same.
Therefore, I am totally unable to verify the Holy Ghost to another person.
He must do that Himself........ if and when we approach the Lord in a
repentent, sincere way, and ask Him to send the Holy Ghost to us.
If my answer seemed cryptic, it is because I have explained this to
atheists before, to no avail. Most, if not all of them know full well that
I cannot verify (let alone prove) the existence of God. Yet, they
continually demand it. So, whenever the same old question crops up, the
"cryptic" form of answering both suffices, and saves time and posting
space.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
J. Michael Phillips wrote
Cory Collins wrote
> Don Kresch scratched
> > Cory Collins etched
> > >Michelle Malkin wrote
> > > Cory Collins wrote
> > >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> > And how does he do that?
> Very well! Try Him yourself
Interesting play on words. However, it would be useful if you would simply
answer the question asked instead of making "cute" plays on words.
Please keep in mind - this is coming from a fellow Christian. Your answer
imparts no information in usable form - only info regarding your mindset.
Michael, if you have been monitoring these discussions for any time at all,
you know that Kresch lives to flame theists....... in any, and all ways
which come into his mind.
I have supplied him, and others, with fuller answers to questions like the
one above numerous times. All he/they do is flame it, and later ask
essentially the same questions again. They want me to explain things I
cannot....... and they know very well I cannot. In answering the question
"..how does he do that?", one must go to the source. Only the Holy Ghost
is able to verify Himself to ANY of us, including Kresch. If Don continues
to look in the wrong place for his answers, he will get no satisfying
results, and thus will not get to know God.
Debate these folks yourself and see how long it takes you to get cryptic in
your answers....... that is, if you have the persistence to stay with them
for any length of time.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Michelle Malkin
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Don Kresch scratched
>> Cory Collins etched
>
>> >Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>> >> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
>> >Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
>
>> Maybe if you'd stop copping-out and actually answer this question, we'd
>> stop asking.
>
>Direct experience is worth a thousand descriptions.
>(similar to; a picture is worth a thousand words)
>
>In Jesus' Name,
>Cory
Please tell us about your direct experience.
Don Kresch
in the space-time continuum
>
>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:378d1cc8...@news.mindspring.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:09:07 -0400, "Marilyn Bellotti"
>> <mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>>
>> >Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just an
>> >average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
>> >
>> Paul was a wacko and a con man. The Devil doesn't exist. Prove
>> otherwise.
>
>***YAWN***
>
>Paul was a messenger of God. The Devil exists, and is a powerful force in Michelle's life. Prove otherwise
You know that's the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Cory Collins
J. Michael Phillips wrote
Cory Collins wrote
> > >> And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> > >I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> > Good point. Santa claus is real because he has a bag of toys. The bag
of
> > toys is self-evident.
> So, the ole boy spoke to you, did he?
> The difference is; which one will actually communicate with you.
:One Christian to another:
:Please describe this communication. Can you understand both my and the
atheist's :concern? Jim Jones received communication from "God" and
"Jesus."
Jones CLAIMED to have such communication. Since we are told to recognize
Jesus' followers by their works, Jones was far from truthful in his claim.
The Lord's way of communicating is usually on a purely spiritual level. It
comes only when we have a genuinely repentent, submissive heart. And, it
comes ONLY when He knows we are sincere. Spirit 'speaks' to spirit.
: Neither the atheist nor I believe that Jim Jones was sane.
Nor do I.
:Your description so far is indistinguishable from Jim's. How does anyone
know the difference?
It's been long enough now that I have forgotten much of what Jones
described as his 'experiences'. I do, however, remember that he supposedly
said that God led him to do the things he did. I personally have never
received anything remotely like that from God. I know the difference
between Jones and myself. And I know what I have experienced from the
Lord. His works include leading people to follow him blindly, and murder.
I am not trying to get anyone to follow me, only God in a personal
relationship. And I am certainly not a murderer. Draw you own conclusions.
:Please be aware: I'm not trying to "bust your chops." I am hoping that
you'll see the legitimate concerns of your audience.
So far, the atheists I've encountered have only one so-called 'legimate
concern'......
to insult, discredit, and curse Christians. They seem to thrive on it.
With some, it even seems to be their main source of entertainment.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
J. Michael Phillips wrote
Cory Collins wrote
> Robibnikoff > wrote >...
> > Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
Then again, maybe He won't. The ecclesiastical history of God made
Manifest is sketchy at best. God's policy seems to be one of status quo.
Aside from direct revelation, how does one discern the presence of God?
Right! If one doesn't approach God in the manner described in the NT, it's
quite likely He won't reveal Himself.
For now, God's "policy" seems to be a 'wait and see' one. Wait and see
which ones among us will choose to follow Him. As far as history goes, we
only know what has been written down. We know absolutely nothing of how
many people God has actually manifested Himself to, who didn't record the
event for posterity.
Any personal communication from God can be considered revelation for the
individual involved. With so many atheists and agnostics around, it's no
wonder to me that He keeps it on a one-on-one basis these days.
Once, God used broad strokes to prove Himself to whole nations. And still
they would not believe and follow Him. So now, He appears to be just
waiting to see who will do so on faith alone in what He has taught.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
Cory Collins
J. Michael Phillips wrote
Robert Chapman wrote
>snip<
> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> Would you also say that a tree verifies itself? Of course not, so
> describe your verification of the Holy Ghost the same way you would
> describe your verification of a tree.
:How do you verify that *this* dogwood is a tree, and not a bush?
The tree exists in a physical form in a physical world. We verify it
through our physical senses.
The Holy Ghost, like the Father and Son, exist in a spiritual realm. We
physical beings are not able to verify them like we do the tree. We can
perceive them only through the spirit, when one of them initiates it.
The tree has no power to conceal itself from us. God does have that power.
In Jesus' Name,
Cory
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: How do you *not* believe in "magic?" I'm serious, too. =20
: What if I told you that I could make someone "magically" disappear,
: and then reappear 3 floors higher? To people before about 1900, that
: would sound like "magic." today, we call it an elevator. =20
Not only did elevators exist then, they violated no known principles of
physics.
Care to try for another amazingly stupid analogy, or are you first
going to let your brain charge up to the level of an unambitious fungus?
Nat & Al Enquirer
Thank you for your kind reply. We enjoy civil discourse, and will be
more
than happy to try to answer your questions and respond to your
observations.
Please see our comments appropriately inserted below.
--
Respectfully,
Nat and Al
To reply via e-mail, remove DOT from address
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11d7fbdec...@news.campuscwix.net...
-----we snip ourselves-----
> The reason it was
> cross posted was because we all (atheists and theists) are thinking human
> human beings and I thought that it would give the different groups some
> insight into how belief is rationalized.
Well, we question the idea that belief must go through a process of
rationalization. We presume there is a chair somewhere in this world
that
you do not examine before sitting yourself down in it. At that moment
you have
exhibited belief. You have tested this furniture previously and are
familiar with either the establishment that sold it or the persons that
made
this article available to you. Each time you sit yourself in this seat
you hear no creaks and the
framework seems stable. You have by observation, personal
experience, and lack of cause for suspicion taken for granted the
reliability
of this chair for the purpose it was intended. You have taken a sit of
faith.
This is pretty small potatoes compared to our relationship to and with a
transcendent, all powerful, creative being, but to us the principle is
the
same. We can talk rationally about Him, but belief in God is rational
if
we have reasonable evidence and his activity and purpose in history is
adequately documented. We think there is ample evidence that the
documents
that comprise the New Testament are both what they claim to be, and
reliably
(and in some cases, scrupulously) record what they, or their sources
saw.
We do not subscribe to the idea that, because He is not directly subject
to
scientific inquiry, God is nonrational and does not relate to what we
call
reality. The kind of relationship that the Bible says we have with God,
on
the primary level anyway, is that of creator and creation.
We hit the local arts and crafts rounds at least once a year, and are
especially interested in art glass. We have yet to see a bench of newly
blown glass successfully organize an inquiry into what they should do
with
their lives and what business the glass artist has in using them in any
way
he sees fit. We, as self protective and naturally suspicious beings are
not likely to buy into a position that appears so capricious, and such a
self
image is not likely to win the popular vote. But, there you are. In
our
opinion, we are less likely to meaningfully force God into our box and
make
Him jump through our hoops as art glass is likely to succeed in
achieving
self-determination.
To be a little more direct and blunt, we are in a different class than
God
(as he is represented in scripture) and cannot hope to understand Him
from
our perspective. "It is he who made us, and we are his." (Psalm 100:3
NIV)
"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me
like
this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump
of
clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans
9:19-20 NIV). As you do not know the path of the wind, /or how the body
is formed in a
mother's womb, /so you cannot understand the work of God, /the Maker of
all
things. (Ecclesiastes 11:5 NIV) Who has understood the mind of the
LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to
enlighten
him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him
knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14 NIV)
All this is to say, we can rationally discuss what is recorded, and our
own
observations and experiences, but belief based on evidence does not
require
rationalization, and ultimately, we will reach a limit to our
understanding.
But, hey..., even atheist know knowledge has limits. So, we are not so
far
apart, from that perspective.
> As you said (whew!) after listing them.
We will try to exercise some restraint in the future, and will write out
the
verses referred to (but they should be read in context).
> I think the reason I did not
> remember these (I know I read them years ago) was that they were not
> relevant to my experience and only bring up more questions. Like where
> and what is a loud command?
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
with
the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the
dead in
Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16 NIV)
Well, in this case it looks like a command for the dead in Christ to
rise.
What it will sound like is anyone's guess.
> Not to mention angles
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he
will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." (Matthew 25:31 NIV); "If
anyone
is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation,
the
Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory
with
the holy angels." (Mark 8:38 NIV)
Do these passages require a visual representation? Jesus is the center
of activity in these passages, the angels are "along for the ride" so to
speak, and are not central to what is being communicated
> and fire.
This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing
fire
with his powerful angels. (2 Thessalonians 1:7 NIV)
Well, fire suggests energy. The word for power (as in, "All power is
given to me") is the greek word we get the english word dynamite from.
The burning bush was not consumed by the fire. We don't know if this is
the some thing that happens when you strike a match or lightening
strikes a forest during drought season.
This is the creator of the universe, so even if it is combustion (which
we don't think it is) it wouldn't be a problem form Him, and it isn't
relevant to the meaning of the passage. Jesus will be revealed from
heaven. Maybe this is the supernatural equivalent of fireworks(?).
> You are
> right to say this is read as mumbo-jumbo. But it does not really answer
> the question. If those things happen as you describe will they be
> observed by everybody on earth at the same time? or in a localized place
> as miracles seem to have occurred in the past?
Look, he is coming with the clouds, /and every eye will see him, /even
those
who pierced him; /and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of
him. (Revelation 1:7 NIV)
Doesn't sound like there is a location restriction. How this is done is
not explained.
> Will the angles look like
> angles as pictured in the 17th century or like aliens? In other words
> how do you know what an angel looks like?
We really love this question. Have you been reading C.S. Lewis' "The
Screwtape Letters"? In his preface he wrote:
...Fra Angelica's angels carry in their face and gesture the peace and
authority of Heaven. Later come the chubby infantile nudes of Raphael;
finally, the soft, slim, girlish, and consolatory angels of nineteenth
century art, shapes so feminine that they avoid being voluptuous only by
their total insipidity -- the frigid houris of a teatable paradise.
They
are a pernicious symbol. In Scripture the visitation of an angel is
always
alarming; it has to begin by saying "Fear not." The Victorian angel
looks
as if it were going to say, "There, there."
Angels in art are always representational, and most language about them
is
anthropomorphic. Otherwise, how could we talk about them at all. Here
are
some statements about angels from the Bible:
He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants. (Psalm 104:4
NIV
and quoted in Hebrews 1:7); Are not all angels ministering spirits sent
to
serve those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:14).
The ontology of angels is that they are noncorporeal and do not have
extension in space and time. So, strictly speaking, angels (like God)
do not look like anything. There is no place in scripture that suggest
that angels can create bodies, so it seems logical that God creates
their material appearance when they
take human form. But this is an inference. You never see fallen angels
take human form. So it is our opinion that angel will look like what
they will look like, and the circumstances of the event will leave no
room for misinterpretation.
> Same goes for all the other
> signs. These are not specific as to extent or location.
We do not see lack of specificity as a problem. These statements are to
give a general impression of the conditions of the return of Christ. It
is
repeatedly indicated that God's plans are beyond our comprehension. We
are
not surprised that the information provided is somewhat general. Even
the
angels are left out:
Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:12 NIV)
> As far as the
> holy followers, well, where are they from and how do they know and when
> did they know it?
May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in
the
presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his
holy
ones. (1 Thessalonians 3:13 NIV);
In this context holy ones are the resurrected saints. You may recall
they
were summoned with a "loud command" (We are guessing that if you lived
next to us and we were capable of producing a similar "loud command" you
would be calling the police to complain about noise ordinance
violations).
> In this respect according to the bible Jesus preformed miracles for a few
> people living in the Middle East and that was it. What about the rest of
> the world?
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this exchange. In the Gospel
According to Matthew, we see Jesus issuing what is commonly known as
"The
Great Commission."
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth
has
been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am
with
you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20 NIV).
They preached and wrote and testified and died martyrs' deaths. Perhaps
you
can be more specific and we'll try to comment in another post (maybe a
shorter one?)[Don't bet on it 8-P]
> And as far as being a little addled. I'm not the one who believes in the
> mumbo jumbo.:)
Did we suggest you were a little addled? A gentleman (?) named [ $mokey
]
said:
"On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:19:25 -0400, dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net
(Dave Haas) got banged over the head with a steel pan, then exhaled:"
We said at the end of our last post:
(And finally, Mr. Hass, we hope your head is feeling better after that
steel
pan incident).
We certainly did not intend to suggest a connection between the misuse
of
kitchenware and you opinion. We were up too late (and we are doing it
again) and were just trying be be humorous. Was this a whoops?
> This brings up another question. If you know it sounds
> like magic or something impossible how can you believe it? I'm serious.
We don't think it sounds like magic (we don't believe in magic,
anyway..just skilled illusionists), we think it sound like magic to
those who believe everything has a natural explanation. When we say to
our brother it seems like mumbo jumbo, we are recognizing that you do
not share our presuppositions and will not likely receive the info as
anything more than an exposition of data that you do not relate to.
Mumbo jumbo is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
Etymology: Mumbo Jumbo, a masked figure among Mandingo peoples of
western Africa
1 : an object of superstitious homage and fear
2 a : a complicated often ritualistic observance with elaborate
trappings b : complicated activity usually intended to obscure and
confuse
3 : unnecessarily involved and incomprehensible language : gibberish
Don't you currently think definition (1) applies. Some would say they
all apply. None of these definitions specifically reference magic,
although that may be involved.
This topic of "How would we know Jesus, and how would we treat Him" is
interesting to discuss, but to us it is simply too far away from the
core issues. We see the crux of the matter best stated in Matthew
16:13-17.
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
If the documents have faithfully recorded the works of Christ, if He is
who He says He is, if He did die and did raise from the dead, if He is
the creator of everything that is, then that defines the paradigm that
everything else is interpreted in the light of. Things that look
problematic on the surface are given the benefit of the doubt.
Conclusions we would not come to merely via observation become credible.
We have always believed that all persons have an infinite capacity to
delude themselves when they have a vested interest in not facing the
truth. We do not exempt ourselves. We regularly and constantly search
our mind for signs we have lied to ourself. We correct our course
whenever the condition is found. We do not let our brothers in the
faith get away with sloppy thinking. We try to improve our own
reasoning powers.
We agree with Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, whose credentials include a
bachelor's degree in philosophy from the University of Minnesota, a
master of divinity degree (cum laude) from Yale University Divinity
School, and a doctorate degree (magna cum laude) from Princeton
Theological Seminary. He says when confronted with the idea that "the
Jesus of faith is not rooted in history" and is "merely a symbol": "I
don't want to base my life on a symbol...I want reality, and the
Christian faith has always been rooted in reality....Christianity is not
a pipe dream."
We don't have the time to waste on bologna from a "sacred book." We
believe He is alive. We believe He had the authority to provide
reconciliation between man and God to any who would take it. If Jesus
is dead, then punch our our time card, its vacation time.
We do not see a better explanation of the complexity and design in this
world that comes close to competing with the postulation that there is
design because there is a designer.
We do not find a better explanation for the various aspirations and
strivings that people have, than that they are trying to address a felt
lack and that the lack they feel is a symptom of their estrangement from
God. The human condition is not addressed adequately by any other point
of view, in our opinion. These issues have been repeatedly address in
these newsgroups and elsewhere. We have followed the debates and remain
unconvinced of the alternative theories.
So, in brief (it takes some effort for us to be brief, you may have
noted), we believe because we believe Jesus is alive, based on reliably
witnesses; He is who he says He is, as recorded by those who knew him
and died for what they were convinced was the truth; the world view that
precedes from a plain reading of the books of the bible best explains
the life we lead and the reason we are leading it. We believe the
claims of Christ are strong enough to warrant such a commitment.
We will be most interested in your opinions, objections, and
observations about this reply. So far, this has been a delightful
exchange. We very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. N&A
> D. Haas
>
---more snip--no snit---
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Cory Collins <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
: >How do you distinguish between eating a real meal, and dreaming
: >that you ate one?
: When I eat a real meal, I usually feel like taking a dump shortly
: thereafter.
Unlike Cory, who constantly dreams of taking dumps, as it is the closest
thing to a satisfying sexual experience that he is capable if having.
Nat & Al Enquirer
Thank you for your interesting variation on one of Mr. Haas' questions.
Without getting too detailed (we have to get up at 5:00 AM to go to
work), we don't deal in the super-natural expect when forced to. We
think the illusionists art is very entertaining, but there isn't any
manipulation of natural laws here. To the contrary, natural laws and
crowd psychology is all that is active here.
The resurrection of Jesus is either historical fact, a giant hoax, or a
big ol' myth. We don't thing the apostles would die for a big ol'. we
don't think someone who said and did the things Jesus is reported to
have done would participate in a hoax (the medical evidence suggests
quite strongly He was dead before he was taken off the cross, which
would preclude any further part for Him to play in a hoax, anyway). The
people who knew him best were convinced he was alive. This wasn't
represented as magic, but as the power of God.
If you discount the possibility of supernatural activity in this world,
you have to explain away too may things that are attested to by
historically accurate reports.
Regarding your elevator example: The Nineteenth century hearers might
not know how you planned to accomplish this, but they wouldn't thing it
was magic if they saw an elevator in operation. Dumbwaiters go back to
the 1700's and pulleys at least to the 14th century. Otis just
industrialized it. We think you are underestimating your audience with
this example.
We aren't quite sure what magic you think we should believe in, given
our convictions about the supernatural. We have finally completed our
reply to Mr. Haas, and it also addresses briefly why we believe. The
post itself, however, is self indulgently lengthy. We clearly need an
editor or something. So if you decide to read it, be sure to bring
along a large cup of coffee.
Anyway, we hope this answers your question.
--
Respectfully,
Nat and Al
To reply via e-mail, please remove -nospamneededthanks- from the
address.
"J. Michael Phillips" wrote:
>
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message news:MPG.11d7fbdec...@news.campuscwix.net...
>
> ***snip***
> >
> > And as far as being a little addled. I'm not the one who believes in the
> > mumbo jumbo.:) This brings up another question. If you know it sounds
> > like magic or something impossible how can you believe it? I'm serious.
>
> How do you *not* believe in "magic?" I'm serious, too.
>
Nat & Al Enquirer
"J. Michael Phillips" wrote:
>
> Good post, well said.
>
> Afraid I have to disagree with one thing, however. Not so much by disputing your scripture references. They are accurate, but there will come a time when the Antichrist will appear, and he will come in similar fashion, to deceive the very elect. The *real* second coming will be unmistakable to the faithful, but the "false starts" will no be so easily dismissed, don't you think?
>
> Nat and Al Enquire <Nat_and_Al_...@att.net> wrote in message news:7kkp8c$60b$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Dear Mr. Phillips,
Thank you for your kind words.
We do not see the position you are representing as being very clearly
stated in scripture. It doesn't seem to be popular to expect the
anti-christ to be an actual person until John Darby developed the
dispensational approach to scripture and Dr. C. I. Scofield took the
ball and ran with it. There is a great deal of disagreement regarding
eschatological details. We all agree Jesus will come again. That is
enough for us. We think anything more would be like debating the number
of angels that can dance on the head of a pin (a favorite debate of
another generation).
We think "the plain things are the main things and the main things the
plain things" is a good principle. There is no point in picking nits in
public. This stuff belongs "in-house" where we can get as foolish as we
want without alarming the neighbors.
Frankly, we get nervous when we read some of the conclusions otherwise
rational believers arrive at regarding the second coming. We would much
rather expend our energy and limited time discussing essential
questions. The nature of Antichrist is quite peripheral, in our
opinion.
Nevertheless, thank you for your comments.
Robert Chapman
<Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.nospamcampuscwix.net> wrote in message =
> news:MPG.11d7fbdec...@news.campuscwix.net...
>
> ***snip***
> > And as far as being a little addled. I'm not the one who believes in =
> the=20
> > mumbo jumbo.:) This brings up another question. If you know it sounds =
>
> > like magic or something impossible how can you believe it? I'm serious.
>
>
> What if I told you that I could make someone "magically" disappear, and =
> then reappear 3 floors higher?
I'd tell you you were being facetious.
Rob
> To people before about 1900, that would =
> sound like "magic." today, we call it an elevator. =20
Robert Chapman
<Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> OTOH . . .=20
>
> Robert Chapman <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message =
> news:robertc-2206...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>
> ***snip***
> > >=20
> > > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
> > >=20
> > > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
> >=20
> > Would you also say that a tree verifies itself? Of course not, so
> > describe your verification of the Holy Ghost the same way you would
> > describe your verification of a tree.
>
> How do you verify that *this* dogwood is a tree, and not a bush?
By reference to man-made concepts (words) that we have created to classify
objects. Is this supposed to be a revealing question?
Rob
Robert Chapman
<wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
> Jones CLAIMED to have such communication. Since we are told to recognize
> Jesus' followers by their works, Jones was far from truthful in his claim.
What do you think of Moses who claimed God told him to annihilate many
races of people in the Middle East (which he succeeded in doing)? Seeing
as you are told to judge people by their works. Well?
Rob
Robibnikoff
"Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robibnikoff wrote in article
> > snip<
> > Cory - I know I said I'd stop debating with you, but I'm on my lunch
> hour, a
> > bit bored, and I'm sorry but it's just too tempting. I'm curious - does
> the
> > Holy Ghost communicate with you?
>
> On occasion.
>
> >Do you hear him speaking to you?
>
> Nope. No sound.
>
> > Because if
> > you're hearing disembodied voices talking to you,.......
>
> "Disembodied" implies that one had a body to begin with. The Holy Spirit
> has not ever had one so far as I know.
>
> > ........... I used to work for the Dept. of Psychiatry at a university
> > teaching hospital and have a little knowledge on the subject.
>
> I hope none of it rubbed off on you.
Watch it, Buckeroo - I have a close family member with a mental illness and I
don't take jokes about it very kindly. If anything "rubbed off' on me, it
was compassion and understanding.
> Now that you've succumbed to temptation, you can go back to work, now.
>
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
>
>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>
>
>J. Michael Phillips wrote
>
>Robert Chapman wrote
>
>>snip<
>> > > And how would you verify the Holy Ghost?
>
>> > I wouldn't. He verifies Himself.
>
>> Would you also say that a tree verifies itself? Of course not, so
>> describe your verification of the Holy Ghost the same way you would
>> describe your verification of a tree.
>
>:How do you verify that *this* dogwood is a tree, and not a bush?
>
>The tree exists in a physical form in a physical world. We verify it
>through our physical senses.
>The Holy Ghost, like the Father and Son, exist in a spiritual realm. We
>physical beings are not able to verify them like we do the tree.
IOW: that such things exist is just a wish. They don't actually exist save
in your imagination.
Thanks for admitting there is no god.
Marilyn Bellotti
I'm also confused as to whom is refering to me as a troll.
Marilyn
Michelle Malkin wrote in message <377a5971...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:15:41 -0700, "J. Michael Phillips"
><Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:378d1cc8...@news.mindspring.com...
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:09:07 -0400, "Marilyn Bellotti"
>>> <mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just
an
>>> >average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of
Jesus.
>>> >
>>> Paul was a wacko and a con man. The Devil doesn't exist. Prove
>>> otherwise.
>>
>>***YAWN***
>>
>>Paul was a messenger of God. The Devil exists, and is a powerful force in
Michelle's life. Prove otherwise
>>
>>
>Another non-response. Why? Because Marilyn has nothing to back up her
>words. She is merely a female version of Cory. In other words - a
>troll.
>
>
Marilyn Bellotti
your experience.I don;'t know what horipilation means.
Marilyn
J. Michael Phillips wrote in message ...
Marilyn Bellotti <mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
news:7kmd7k$j82$1...@news01.li.net...
> Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just an
> average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of Jesus.
I assume you mean "funny" as in "strange," and not "funny" as in "humorous."
Oddly enough, I find it neither humorous nor strange. It makes more sense
to me than the popular images of good and evil.
You don't want to know of my experience of beauty and Lucifer (Satan,
whatever). It literally caused horipilation - not only to me, but to my
friend as well . . .
Robibnikoff
"Cory Collins" <wyt...@silverstar.com> wrote:
>
>
> J. Michael Phillips wrote
> Sorry, Michelle, you're wrong . . .
>
> > "Cory Collins" wrote
> Well, Michael, any Christian would/should know that the Holy Ghost is
> spirit, and that spirits cannot be proven in a physical world except by
> their own actions. The Father, the Son, and/or the Holy Ghost are each
> powerful enough to manifest themselves in a physical sense. But, you and I
> are not powerful enough to do the same.
> Therefore, I am totally unable to verify the Holy Ghost to another person.
> He must do that Himself........ if and when we approach the Lord in a
> repentent, sincere way, and ask Him to send the Holy Ghost to us.
> If my answer seemed cryptic, it is because I have explained this to
> atheists before, to no avail. Most, if not all of them know full well that
> I cannot verify (let alone prove) the existence of God. Yet, they
> continually demand it. So, whenever the same old question crops up, the
> "cryptic" form of answering both suffices, and saves time and posting
> space.
>
> In Jesus' Name,
> Cory
>
>
Hmmmm - that's very interesting, but unfortunately you never answered the
question of how would the Holy Ghost verify itself. We're not asking you to
prove that it exists, just how it would communicate with you to "verify"
itself. It's seems to me that "cryptic" answers save you from actually
providing us with concrete information. For instance, how did the Holy
Spirit verifiy itself to you? Don't tell me to go search for it, open up my
heart, etc. ; how did it verify itself to you?
Don Kresch
>
>
>Don Kresch scratched
>> Cory Collins etched
>
>> >Robibnikoff > wrote >...
>> >> Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
>
>> >Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
>
>> Maybe if you'd stop copping-out and actually answer this question, we'd
>> stop asking.
>
>Direct experience is worth a thousand descriptions.
But, Corykins YOU'VE NEVER TOLD US HOW, THAT IS TO SAY, WITH
WHAT SENSE YOU USE TO DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE THIS THING!
Have I made myself clear?
Basically, you need to tell us HOW you sense this thing. What
sense do you use.
No more evading, Cory.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption Squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert
stoney
[>J. Michael Phillips wrote
[>
[>Cory Collins wrote
[>> Robibnikoff > wrote >...
[>> > Okeydokey - how would the Holy Ghost verify himself?
[>
[>> Maybe if you ask Him, He'll show you.
[>
[>Then again, maybe He won't. The ecclesiastical history of God made
[>Manifest is sketchy at best. God's policy seems to be one of status quo.
[>Aside from direct revelation, how does one discern the presence of God?
[>
[>Right! If one doesn't approach God in the manner described in the NT, it's
[>quite likely He won't reveal Himself.
[>For now, God's "policy" seems to be a 'wait and see' one.
How can you tell a 'wait and see' policy from nonexistance?
[> Wait and see
[>which ones among us will choose to follow Him.
There goes ominescence.
[>As far as history goes, we
[>only know what has been written down. We know absolutely nothing of how
[>many people God has actually manifested Himself to, who didn't record the
[>event for posterity.
The same goes for Ra, Odin, Tiamat the dragon, the frost giants and a myraid
of other deity constructs.
[>Any personal communication from God can be considered revelation for the
[>individual involved.
Which one? After all there are thousands of the critters. And why do you
disregard revelations of communications from competing gods/goddess's?
[>With so many atheists and agnostics around, it's no
[>wonder to me that He keeps it on a one-on-one basis these days.
So atheists and agnostics are more powerful than your god. So much for
omnipotence. Do keep in mind you are getting the same questions you would
ask a follower of another god/goddess you lack belief in.
[>Once, God used broad strokes to prove Himself to whole nations. And still
[>they would not believe and follow Him. So now, He appears to be just
[>waiting to see who will do so on faith alone in what He has taught.
Once again omniessence[sp] and omnipotence go out the window.
I'm curious as to why you follow such an omni-impotent critter?
[> In Jesus' Name,
[> Cory
Stoney
Mike Murphy
Those who make the claim that something exists bear the burden of proof.
The Bible isn't proof- otherwise we should all be praying to the cat in the
hat- I read that one, too.
Landis D. Ragon
>I don't believe we've ever met. How did you know I am a dwarf?
>I'm also confused as to whom is refering to me as a troll.
>Marilyn
>
From www.dictionary.com
troll
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other
(electronic) communication which is intentionally
incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare
flame bait), or the act of sending such a message.
Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from
those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really
subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
(1994-10-17)
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom
denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
Mike Murphy
I hate to interrupt your flow here, but please allow me to interject. I
know that what you are talking about is pure bullshit. I've been where you
are standing right now- I believed in the Holy Spirit, deluded myself to
"feel" its presence and was every bit as fervent as you are about the
existence of such an animal. Unfortunately, the more that this occurred,
the more that I was convinced that I was fooling myself. It wasn't easy to
make this move- I first thought that I was a horrible sinner and that I
would surely go to hell. It took time to get my mind back. This type of
religion that you are talking about is like a form of mass hypnosis- the
preacher gets the flock going and the flok gets into it emotionally- this
makes the flock highly suggestible. Get yourself some help.
Marilyn Bellotti
I'm sorry I wasn't aware you were waiting for a reply from
me. I directed my remark to a person who saw the irony of the hearts of the
lovely persons of our world and the hearts of the unlovely of the world. The
lovely or beautiful seemed to have harder hearts than the disfigured people
that he knew.
You want me to prove the existence of Satan and God. In other words you
want me to show you the wind. Not the effects of the wind but the wind
itself. Impossible!
I can show you how Jesus changed the life of Paul in the
bible. Paul was called Saul before he was known as Paul. He was a holy
roller of his time. well versed in scripture. He knew the Jewish law and the
Jewish religion of his time. He was also guilty of killing and persecuting
the Christians. I don't know if he threw the stones that killed the first
Christians, but I know he was responsible for their death personally.
Paul had a direct revelation from Jesus. An audio revelation. He heard Him.
Paul was blinded until he was visited by a Christian man. Ananias went to
Saul in spite of his fear of him according to a vision he had from the Lord.
This had a dramatic affect on Paul's life. He immediately went from killing
the Christians to preaching the gospel of grace in Jesus. He went to the
synagogues and boldly proclaimed the message of salvation in Jesus the
Messiah. He was in turn, stoned and left for dead. He was imprisoned several
times. He was killed for his revelation of Jesus. He died knowing and
proclaiming the truth of God. He knew the scriptures from the Mosaic sense
and realized that they proclaimed the truth of the Messiah, Jesus the
Christ.
As for Satan, get a bible and read Isaiah 14:12-21. We'll talk about this
another time if you want.
sincerely in Christ
Marilyn
Michelle Malkin wrote in message <377a5971...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:15:41 -0700, "J. Michael Phillips"
><Fr_Con...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:378d1cc8...@news.mindspring.com...
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:09:07 -0400, "Marilyn Bellotti"
>>> <mbel...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Isn't it funny that Lucifer is strikingly beautiful and Paul was just
an
>>> >average man. One represents evil the other the grace and mercy of
Jesus.
>>> >