A few questions for Christians
holly_alie...@my-deja.com
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
self-control. I actually opened my Bible and found this after having
remembered learning this as a teenager. I don't think that was written to be
a checklist to try to live up to and I'm not asserting that it is. However,
it seems that I have met very few Christians who actually exhibit these
characteristics. I kind of gathered from reading this that Paul thought they
were something that occurred naturally from believing or receiving the
spirit. Furthermore, when Christians try to witness to atheists, they do not
often exhibit these characteristics - instead they talk about how abhorrent
atheists are or how God is ready to send atheists to hell. This doesn't seem
very loving and unless you're a spiteful person it doesn't much sound like
anything to have joy about.
I can say that when I went to church, it didn't seem like people were happy
to be there. They weren't necessarily spiteful or anything, but nonetheless
they didn't seem joyful. If believing is such a wonderful thing is
worshipping God supposed to be such a chore? Is it really good news or is it
not?
Then I found this other verse that said God's worshippers must worship him in
spirit and truth. Well is it true or is it not true? If there really is
truth to these claims about a risen savior or other things, why do so many
people who post in here say that theists are justified in believing on a
priori assumptions or on the basis that faith means believing stuff that no
one in his right mind would believe? It was actually Archie Bunker who said
that. It seems to me that if what Christians believe is actually true then
they would start providing evidence for its truth. And furthermore, it seems
that the more one mentions hell, the less actual evidence for truth one
provides. If you are going to assert that the vast majority of mankind is
doomed to eternal suffering, then you had better provide some pretty good
evidence for those unpleasant claims.
And last but not least, I would like to add some personal things. When I was
a teenager, I enjoyed worshipping God and I was happy singing praises. I was
actually happy to go to church and worship God. My doubts began after choir
concert in which I prayed to God to witness to someone. I felt like he asked
me why I was a Christian and I tried to give a good answer. Here I had this
joyful experience and the stuff I spewed back to what I then believed was God
and later believed was myself, was a bunch of religious dogma. The more I
began to think through the dogma about people going to hell, the less I
wanted to sing God's praises until finally I became an atheist. I decided
that I had been a stupid fool and that there was no reason why I should be a
missionary after all because there really wasn't anything to sing about. I
rightly concluded that non-Christians weren't going to want to hear someone
who was going to assert that most of humankind was going to hell.
The funny thing is, the longer I walked down the path of atheism, the less I
heard about God's love. It seemed like God became angrier. Instead of
feeling like I could open up to Christians and ask for answers, I felt as if
I had to hide my unbelief for fear of being persecuted. And sometimes it
seemed like I got stupider and stupider answers. I began to see all the evil
and hate done in the name of Jesus and I wondered why I ever praised such a
name.
However, I am dedicated to the earnest pursuit of truth. I decided that no
matter what else, I would try to believe whatever was true. I decided to
give up my desires for what I wished to be true. My parents, in an effort to
convert me back to Christianity gave me a book called, "If there's a God, Why
are there atheists?" by RC Sproul. I thumbed through it and it asserted that
atheists did not believe in God because God was not necessarily the kind of
God we would choose to believe in. I certainly did not want to believe in
such a horrible being and it did strike me that perhaps the real reason I
rejected God was that I didn't want to believe in hell.
So I did something that atheists don't often do - I prayed. I said, "God,
right now I'm not sure if you exist or not. I do know it is true that I do
not want to believe in a being who sends people to eternal torment, but if it
is true, then I will believe because I decided to believe what is true above
all else. So if it is true I will believe it anyway even though it doesn't
make me happy." I figured that it wouldn't hurt to be honest. If God didn't
exist, then I was being honest with myself and if he does actually exist,
then he probably knows everything I said behind his back, not to mention
thought. And it was at that moment that I felt a kind of inner peace. I
felt as if God said to me, "I don't send people to hell."
Now, as I have been a skeptic all along, I do not believe that personal
experience alone dictates truth. I believe that personal religious
experience or non-religious experience can be a starting point to look for
truth, but truth itself has to ultimately rest on something deeper. Although
I am still not sure whether or not the Bible is entirely correct, I became
convinced from the tentmaker site that there was not enough evidence to
believe that it teaches the doctrine of hell, even if you believe it to be
the inerrant word of God. Knowing this gave me peace. Furthermore, I
actually met Christians there who exhibited characteristics I found
attractive, like the above mentioned fruits of the spirit. See, when I first
had that question popped, "why are you a Christian?" I felt in my heart of
hearts that fear of hell or reward of heaven weren't really the right
answers. Furthermore, it seemed as if the joy I had from worshipping God
didn't exactly square with a lot of things people said about God. After
reading the tentmaker site and doing some studying, I think I have finally
found the right answer as to why one would want to be a Christian - belief
that God loves everyone and that they have actually encountered God.
Now this of course will require some evidence as there is a lot of evil and
suffering in the world to account for. But do any of you Christians actually
feel joy to come into the presence of God and feel like studying and learning
more about him? See I find it strange, that as an atheist, I devote so much
time to thinking about beings that don't exist. So many times I hear
Christians come to alt.atheism and state the old Pascal Wager, but see that
doesn't cut it. What you should be telling people is that you have
encountered overwhelming truth and joy that you can't help sharing. From
what I see of the New Testament, that is what the early Christians did. So
what happened? Where is all the joy? Is there really a reason to sing?
--
Holly_Alien_Princess, companion to the 9th and 10th Doctors.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John P. Boatwright
> The fruits of the spirit that Christians are supposed to
> possess are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
> faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I actually
> opened my Bible and found this after having remembered
> learning this as a teenager.
(snip)
You have an aughful lot of good points in your post, many
of them though you'll have to figure out for yourself.
Why?
Because YOU decide if you want God to exist or not and
then HE gives you what you wanted.
You're looking for only one thing... the god you want
to create.
That god doesn't exist.
God is HIMSELF, he can be extremely loving, or if rejected,
he can hate and erase his creation.
That's TOTAL ERASURE, KILLING, DEATH, whatever you want to
call it.
Why shouldn't he do such?
Then again, why shouldn't he love and forgive someone wanting
to return to him?
Why shouldn't he be jealous if someone says NOTHING did what
he did? That's a massive insult, why should he stick around
listening to it?
So he backs off and waits, waiting for you to make up your
mind.
Why shouldn't he?
You will make up your mind, he only has to wait for you to do it.
He gave more than enough proof that he did EXACTLY what he said.
You or anyone else saying it's not enough proof... so what?
Or if atheists constantly jam his proof?
Why shouldn't he let you figure it out? You're the one
listening to 'em saying the stuff.
If atheists lean on a mis-translation here, their own missing
understanding there, inability to read other related verses,
etc... and you then forget God in the process of listening
to them... that's YOUR CHOICE, not God's.
He left it up to you and you then either listened to him or those
rejecting him.
Remember the atheists going off about "pi=3.0 in the bible"???
Yep, you either listened to the atheists or you didn't.
The atheists were DEAD WRONG about that verse set, 100% WRONG
and quite a few people fell for it.
There was nothing there to reject, the bible NAILED the
statement of how the bowl was made, yet the atheists were
dragging people off with WORTHLESS statements about that
verse set, all the while against God ... FOR NO REASON.
Did you listen to 'em?
Why?
Didn't you believe God was right and then PROVE HIM RIGHT?
If you didn't believe, why not?
And you did say you wanted God to be whatever you wanted,
whatever you felt God would HAVE TO BE for you to accept
him.
Why?
God doesn't have to be what you want.
God will be who HE wants to be and will love those loving him.
God is somewhat similar to us, similar feelings, he's not dumb,
he's not a machine, he's not some blob out in space, he's God.
The biggest difference between God and ANYONE you know, is that
God is ALL POWERFUL, extremely old, extreme memory, and he's
the creator.
Given those, it says he IS NOT the same as us.
But you then reject him.
Note though, you were told. God did in fact give
WAY TOO MUCH PROOF that he made it all.
Atheists have NO EXCUSE for rejecting him.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Jessica M. Wolfman
wrote:
>holly_alie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> The fruits of the spirit that Christians are supposed to
>> possess are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
>> faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I actually
>> opened my Bible and found this after having remembered
>> learning this as a teenager.
>
>(snip)
>
>You have an aughful lot of good points in your post, many
>of them though you'll have to figure out for yourself.
>
>Why?
>
>Because YOU decide if you want God to exist or not and
>then HE gives you what you wanted.
>
>You're looking for only one thing... the god you want
>to create.
>
>That god doesn't exist.
>
>God is HIMSELF, he can be extremely loving, or if rejected,
>he can hate and erase his creation.
>
>That's TOTAL ERASURE, KILLING, DEATH, whatever you want to
>call it.
>
>Why shouldn't he do such?
>
>Then again, why shouldn't he love and forgive someone wanting
>to return to him?
That's extrememly capricious of him. Very chaotic, and rather wishy-washy.
>Why shouldn't he be jealous if someone says NOTHING did what
>he did?
Jealous of what? An ant?
>That's a massive insult, why should he stick around
>listening to it?
>
>So he backs off and waits, waiting for you to make up your
>mind.
>
>Why shouldn't he?
Not very supportive, is he?
>You will make up your mind, he only has to wait for you to do it.
>
>He gave more than enough proof that he did EXACTLY what he said.
>
>You or anyone else saying it's not enough proof... so what?
>
>Or if atheists constantly jam his proof?
Then atheists are more powerful than god?
>Why shouldn't he let you figure it out? You're the one
>listening to 'em saying the stuff.
>
>If atheists lean on a mis-translation here, their own missing
>understanding there, inability to read other related verses,
>etc... and you then forget God in the process of listening
>to them... that's YOUR CHOICE, not God's.
And god doesn't care enough to correct us?
>He left it up to you and you then either listened to him or those
>rejecting him.
>
>Remember the atheists going off about "pi=3.0 in the bible"???
>
>Yep, you either listened to the atheists or you didn't.
Or, you read the bible and came to your own conclusions.
>The atheists were DEAD WRONG about that verse set, 100% WRONG
>and quite a few people fell for it.
>
>There was nothing there to reject, the bible NAILED the
>statement of how the bowl was made, yet the atheists were
>dragging people off with WORTHLESS statements about that
>verse set, all the while against God ... FOR NO REASON.
Other than that a nook written by an infallible being should also be infallible,
but it's kind of hard to say that a book that claims that, say, insects have
four legs is infallible.
>Did you listen to 'em?
>
>Why?
>
>Didn't you believe God was right and then PROVE HIM RIGHT?
>
>If you didn't believe, why not?
>
>And you did say you wanted God to be whatever you wanted,
>whatever you felt God would HAVE TO BE for you to accept
>him.
>
>Why?
>
>God doesn't have to be what you want.
>
>God will be who HE wants to be and will love those loving him.
>
>God is somewhat similar to us, similar feelings, he's not dumb,
>he's not a machine, he's not some blob out in space, he's God.
>
>The biggest difference between God and ANYONE you know, is that
>God is ALL POWERFUL, extremely old, extreme memory, and he's
>the creator.
How do you know this?
>Given those, it says he IS NOT the same as us.
>
>But you then reject him.
Why do those qualities demand acceptance. Why shoudl god even *care* what we
puny humans think about him?
>Note though, you were told. God did in fact give
>WAY TOO MUCH PROOF that he made it all.
>
>Atheists have NO EXCUSE for rejecting him.
Other than ther *is* no evidence.
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Why did anyone have to die, when this all-powerful being could just wish sin
away?
>Proof God described the planet density profile
>BEFORE science did:
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
>(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Newsgroups trimmed to original two. Quit crossposting to so many groups.
Jessica Wolfman
sa #1002
"No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions."
-- Charles P. Steinmetz
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
Brett Holmes
newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it or
not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof for
the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
anyway. You can however come up with an fairly exhaustive proof by
contradiction. Go to www.reasons.org for the best resource I have seen on
this matter. Constant bickering on these newsgroups will get you nowhere.
Another site you might find interesting is
http://www.ocd.or.at/ics/others/j_3.html, entitled "Prelude to Prayer: The
Prayer of Atheists."
Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
detail, there would be no need for faith. "Where there are no unanswered
questions, there is no trust" (Joyce Myer)
But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then three
days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:37B928...@teleport.com...
> holly_alie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The fruits of the spirit that Christians are supposed to
> > possess are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
> > faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I actually
> > opened my Bible and found this after having remembered
> > learning this as a teenager.
>
> (snip)
>
> You have an aughful lot of good points in your post, many
> of them though you'll have to figure out for yourself.
>
> Why?
>
> Because YOU decide if you want God to exist or not and
> then HE gives you what you wanted.
>
> You're looking for only one thing... the god you want
> to create.
>
> That god doesn't exist.
>
> God is HIMSELF, he can be extremely loving, or if rejected,
> he can hate and erase his creation.
>
> That's TOTAL ERASURE, KILLING, DEATH, whatever you want to
> call it.
>
> Why shouldn't he do such?
>
> Then again, why shouldn't he love and forgive someone wanting
> to return to him?
>
> Why shouldn't he be jealous if someone says NOTHING did what
> he did? That's a massive insult, why should he stick around
> listening to it?
>
> So he backs off and waits, waiting for you to make up your
> mind.
>
> Why shouldn't he?
>
> You will make up your mind, he only has to wait for you to do it.
>
> He gave more than enough proof that he did EXACTLY what he said.
>
> You or anyone else saying it's not enough proof... so what?
>
> Or if atheists constantly jam his proof?
>
> Why shouldn't he let you figure it out? You're the one
> listening to 'em saying the stuff.
>
> If atheists lean on a mis-translation here, their own missing
> understanding there, inability to read other related verses,
> etc... and you then forget God in the process of listening
> to them... that's YOUR CHOICE, not God's.
>
> He left it up to you and you then either listened to him or those
> rejecting him.
>
> Remember the atheists going off about "pi=3.0 in the bible"???
>
> Yep, you either listened to the atheists or you didn't.
>
> The atheists were DEAD WRONG about that verse set, 100% WRONG
> and quite a few people fell for it.
>
> There was nothing there to reject, the bible NAILED the
> statement of how the bowl was made, yet the atheists were
> dragging people off with WORTHLESS statements about that
> verse set, all the while against God ... FOR NO REASON.
>
> Did you listen to 'em?
>
> Why?
>
> Didn't you believe God was right and then PROVE HIM RIGHT?
>
> If you didn't believe, why not?
>
> And you did say you wanted God to be whatever you wanted,
> whatever you felt God would HAVE TO BE for you to accept
> him.
>
> Why?
>
> God doesn't have to be what you want.
>
> God will be who HE wants to be and will love those loving him.
>
> God is somewhat similar to us, similar feelings, he's not dumb,
> he's not a machine, he's not some blob out in space, he's God.
>
> The biggest difference between God and ANYONE you know, is that
> God is ALL POWERFUL, extremely old, extreme memory, and he's
> the creator.
>
> Given those, it says he IS NOT the same as us.
>
> But you then reject him.
>
> Note though, you were told. God did in fact give
> WAY TOO MUCH PROOF that he made it all.
>
> Atheists have NO EXCUSE for rejecting him.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
Stan Paul
> Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
> detail, there would be no need for faith.
Ahh, the classic xtian blunder, assuming that 'faith' means 'belief in
something even though there is no evidence to back it up', which is true as far
as it goes, but then they assume that it also means 'belief in something even
though there is ample evidence to the contrary' which, as we all know, is
actually the definition of delusion.
> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then three
> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the NT said
he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
>
St Spaul
John Quinley
Stan Paul wrote in message <37B9669A...@bowdoin.edu>...
Yes, and lets not forget that those same stories state that Jesus played
dead for about 38 hours, or 1 1/2 days.
JQ
Carl Rooker
Stan Paul wrote in message <37B9669A...@bowdoin.edu>...
>Brett Holmes wrote:
>
>> Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
>> detail, there would be no need for faith.
>
>Ahh, the classic xtian blunder, assuming that 'faith' means 'belief in
>something even though there is no evidence to back it up', which is true as
far
>as it goes, but then they assume that it also means 'belief in something
even
>though there is ample evidence to the contrary' which, as we all know, is
>actually the definition of delusion.
What evidence do you have against the Ressurection? For the Ressurection we
have those who saw Christ afterward, an empty tomb, possibly His burial
shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
clearing up).
>
>> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then
three
>> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
>
>Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the NT
said
>he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
You were there I suppose, or you know someone who was, or maybe you have a
manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
Ah, the classic anti-christian blunder, that your guesses and theories are
better evidence than the statements of the witness'es who were there.
In answer to the original question, just because we have to oppose what is
falsely called knowledge of those against Christ, does not mean that we, or
God do not love them. God's hand of Grace is still extended to all, but
everyone must take that hand or not by their own choice. And if we reject
God's Grace, then what is left for us but His Justice.
God Bless
Carl
William
>I think that anyone who would post / read messages on any of these
>newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it or
>not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof for
>the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
>anyway.
That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
William
Peter Walker
<roo...@dnx.net> wrote:
>What evidence do you have against the Ressurection?
All the biochemical knowledge we have of what happens to someone when
he dies suggest that resurrection is impossible.
All the stories of resurrected god-men who predate your Jesus by
centuries suggest that resurrection is a myth, and a common one at
that.
>For the Ressurection we
>have those who saw Christ afterward,
Who never managed to write anything down in their lifetimes, leaving
the accounts to be composed at best second hand by people who were not
particularly familiar with the era about which they were writing (hence
the terrible histical errors in the setting of the nativity accounts).
>an empty tomb,
There is no empty tomb. There is no tomb at all. The fact that no one
can find a specific burial site for some Yeshua ha Notzri is no more
telling than one's ihnability to find the tomb for Arthur, Mithra, or
any number of mythic or semi-historical figures whose deaths are
purported to be temporary, and whose return foretold in legend.
>possibly His burial
>shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
>clearing up).
This has been known to be a fraud for centuries. Church records admit
as much.
>>Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the NT
>>said he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
>
>You were there I suppose, or you know someone who was, or maybe you have a
>manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
>Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
>
>Ah, the classic anti-christian blunder, that your guesses and theories are
>better evidence than the statements of the witness'es who were there.
Pray, why then do even *Christian* scholars agree that the NT is not a
first-hand account? You keep claiming that there were witnesses. Well,
I just raised the dead. I have five hundred witnesses. Can you
interview them? No. They're not available. Are you convinced of my
claim?
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | EMAIL: p...@spacsun.rice.edu
Rice University | WWW: http://spac-201.rice.edu/
Dept. of Space Physics & Astronomy | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Matt
> What evidence do you have against the Ressurection? For the Ressurection we
> have those who saw Christ afterward, an empty tomb, possibly His burial
> shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
> clearing up).
> >> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then
> >> three
> >> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
> >
> >Actually, Christ never said that...
> You were there I suppose, or you know someone who was, or maybe you have a
> manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
> Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
You have used as your second argument, the exact contrary to your first.
No, he was not there to know what was said or what wasnt, but neither
were you there to see the alleged resurection.
I am inclined to doubt that any of the original apostles are your close
personal friends, or that you are over 2 millenia old. Your guess is as
good as his, and the chances are, based on common every-day experience,
that he is right, not you.
> Ah, the classic anti-christian blunder, that your guesses and theories are
> better evidence than the statements of the witness'es who were there.
These statements and witnesses are no more reliable than any statements
and witnesses called in , for example, the trial of a mafia don. They
are all subject to lies and corruption to suit the context and force the
desired conclusion without regard to the actual facts.
Byebye
Matt.
Corey Snow
<bho...@q-net.net.au> stood in uffish thought and burbled in
alt.atheism:
>I think that anyone who would post / read messages on any of these
>newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it or
>not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof for
>the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
>anyway. You can however come up with an fairly exhaustive proof by
>contradiction. Go to www.reasons.org for the best resource I have seen on
>this matter. Constant bickering on these newsgroups will get you nowhere.
>
[opens web browser. Reads for a few minutes. Puts up with some
realaudio.]
Nope, not convinced. No valid proofs there at all- mostly "the Bible
says so".
These "reasons" you mention seem to fall around a central thesis: that
someone has asked the question. Most atheists (or non-Christians)
couldn't care less what you think is real and would never bother to
ask the questions sites like these love to dismember.
You see, every one of these "responses" to "questions" assumes the
existance of the Christian God. Not one presumes to prove the
existance of such an entity, but rather give self-consistent reasons
for God's existance within the Christian mythos.
These kinds of arguments are known as a "strawman".
<snick>
>Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
>detail, there would be no need for faith. "Where there are no unanswered
>questions, there is no trust" (Joyce Myer)
>
And if it was completely 100% inacurrate, there would still be no need
for faith. I need no faith, or at least not the type that most theists
seem to profess and expect from others, to get along in this world.
>But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then three
>days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
>
If I say that this is not true, what is your evidence that it is? Can
you provide evidence for this story of Jesus rising from the dead?
Corey Snow
http://www.snowpoint.com
----
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
-T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Abner Mintz
> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then
three
> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
"You *do* realize that all you did was shift the 'I can't prove this'
back a step, right?"
Bonesoup
Stan Paul <sp...@bowdoin.edu> wrote in message
news:37B9669A...@bowdoin.edu...
> Brett Holmes wrote:
>
> > Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
> > detail, there would be no need for faith.
>
> something even though there is no evidence to back it up', which is true
as far
> as it goes, but then they assume that it also means 'belief in something
even
> though there is ample evidence to the contrary' which, as we all know, is
> actually the definition of delusion.
Ahh, but Stan, haven't we all come to realize by now, that 'faith' and
'delusion' are utterly synonymous? (please, ClaySkye, don't hate me...)
People cite their 'faith' as excusing all manner of implausibility and
contradiction. The word has been highjacked. It has become so hopelessly
entangled in religion that it doesn't seem we can even use it to mean:
"belief without proof"anymore. It almost necessarily translates as:
"accepting the obviously untrue."
At this point, when I hear someone mention 'faith' I assume that whatever
follows will be, at the very least, sadly mistaken, if not completely
absurd.
'Faith' has been co-opted, and redefined by the Faithful.
From now on we should assume it is spelled: "blindfaith." But remember, the
'blind' is silent...because the Blind are unaware.
bonesoup
#1618
De t'ings dat yo li'ble Dey tell you chillun
To read in de Bible --- ] 8?{/~ De Debble's a villun
It ain't necessarily so. But 'tain't necessarily so.
--Gershwins & Heywards from Porgy and Bess
Anti-Spam: lose the 'y's to email.
Abner Mintz
> What evidence do you have against the Ressurection? For the Ressurection
we
> have those who saw Christ afterward, an empty tomb, possibly His burial
> shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
> clearing up).
"So, let me talk to these people who saw him afterwards. Nope
- they're all dead. All we have is written accounts. Are the
accounts first-hand? Second-hand? Written seventy years
later by other people relating oral history?"
"An empty tomb is hardly much evidence - you'd have a hard
time supporting that his body was ever *in* that particular tomb.
Do you even claim to know exactly what spot that tomb was in
after all this time? I can go and stand where Jesus's body
supposedly lay? Or is this all oral history written down decades
later again?"
"And the evidence with regards to the Shroud of Turin is so ...
poor ... that even the Catholic church doesn't accept it as officially
real - and these are the people that accept the Bones of the Baby
Jesus as being the real thing!"
"Based on such poor evidence, I see no reason to believe in it.
If I was inclined to accept such, I'd have to accept that Elvis
is still alive, that Clinton is a space alien, that Noah's arc is
in Pennsylvania, that ... You get the idea. There's stronger
evidence that Shakespeare's plays were actually written by
Roger Bacon, or in space aliens, and I don't believe in those either."
Aaron I. Spielman
(William) wrote:
> "Brett Holmes" <bho...@q-net.net.au> wrote:
>
> >I think that anyone who would post / read messages on any of these
> >newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it or
> >not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof for
> >the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
> >anyway.
>
> That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
> time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
> insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
What - you just now noticed? It's been like thiss for a _long_ time, and
it does seem to be geting worse. It's too bad he couldn't just answer
Holly's question.
But then, Brett belieeves that the babble is a science book, so you can't
expect too much of him.
--
Aaron I. Spielman | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young - because they
aa...@rockethouse.net | Cussard #.357 | see it's no use living if you've
www.rockethouse.net | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."
Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC | ---John Barrymore
Javacrucian
Carl Rooker wrote:
>
> You were there I suppose, or you know someone who was, or maybe you have a
> manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
> Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
I see. So, since a gospel writer says that 500 people saw Christ, it
MUST be true. Hmmm. Ok, then by your logic, Joseph Smith really did
find the golden tablets of Moroni, because he said he had witnesses. You
must be a Mormon then. No?
I am levitating as I write these words. I have witness standing here.
Unfortunately you can't interview them, but hey, I said they saw it and
by your reasoning that's all it takes. I'm glad you believe me. No?
Is the silliness f your argument starting to get a bit clearer yet?
What is really sad is that there would be no need to point the obvious
to you if this were in regard to any holy book other than your own.
Religion blinds.
Peace,
Javacrucian
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand; ignorance and
prejudice and fear walk hand in hand" -- RUSH
holly_alie...@my-deja.com
sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> holly_alie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The fruits of the spirit that Christians are supposed to
> > possess are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
> > faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I actually
> > opened my Bible and found this after having remembered
> > learning this as a teenager.
>
>
> You have an aughful lot of good points in your post, many
> of them though you'll have to figure out for yourself.
>
> Why?
>
> Because YOU decide if you want God to exist or not and
> then HE gives you what you wanted.
God's actual existence or non-existence is independent of what I
personally think about it or what anyone else thinks either.
>
> You're looking for only one thing... the god you want
> to create.
And where did you get that idea? I am trying to look for truth. It is
a daily struggle as one must always question whether something is
actually true, or what one merely wishes to believe. It is true that
these can coincide, but that is usually coincidental.
>
> That god doesn't exist.
Well no. I don't suppose I can create God.
>
> God is HIMSELF,
I agree that whatever God is, God is, independent of whatever I believe,
know, or wish to believe.
he can be extremely loving, or if rejected,
> he can hate and erase his creation.
>
> That's TOTAL ERASURE, KILLING, DEATH, whatever you want to
> call it.
Evidence?
>
> Why shouldn't he do such?
>
> Then again, why shouldn't he love and forgive someone wanting
> to return to him?
>
> Why shouldn't he be jealous if someone says NOTHING did what
> he did? That's a massive insult, why should he stick around
> listening to it?
>
> So he backs off and waits, waiting for you to make up your
> mind.
>
> Why shouldn't he?
Well you are in fact creating a God here that you believe is an infinite
being who gets upset over the mere doubts of human beings. That's
rather like a parent getting infinitely wrathful at a 5 year old whining
about not getting to stay up past his bedtime. Now of course the parent
may take measurements, including punishments to enforce the bedtime
rule, but I doubt that the tantrums of a 5 year old so offend the parent
as to wish great harm upon the 5 year old. Why do parents punish
children? So they will correct their errors. Now if you can provide
some evidence that God does indeed actually get infinitely wrathful over
people who doubt his existence, then you have a valid point because
after all, God's personality is independent of what I wish it to be.
However, I think it might be assuming we have far greater power over God
than we actually do to think that we can offend him so greatly and wound
his ego.
No, I said that whatever was true I would accept.
>
> Why?
>
> God doesn't have to be what you want.
>
> God will be who HE wants to be and will love those loving him.
I kind of get the impression that God doesn't fight fire with fire, but
loves those who don't love him. If he only loves those who love him,
then why would he bother to die on the cross as Christians assert that
he did? After all, it seemed like at the time that no one really loved
him, in fact they were chanting, "crucify him," which is a lot stronger
way to reject God than to say, "this sounds like a fairy tale." Yet,
Jesus's words were, "Father forgive them for they do not know what they
are doing." And if Jesus were too terribly offended by Doubting Thomas,
I don't suppose he would have showed up, for it certainly wasn't
Doubring Thomas who came to Jesus. Now, if you are going to assert that
the Bible God does indeed exist, I think you have some pretty good
examples of God loving people who in fact may want absolutely nothing to
do with him at the moment.
>
> God is somewhat similar to us, similar feelings, he's not dumb,
> he's not a machine, he's not some blob out in space, he's God.
Well good. If I were smarter than God, I don't suppose I would have
much use for him.
>
> The biggest difference between God and ANYONE you know, is that
> God is ALL POWERFUL, extremely old, extreme memory, and he's
> the creator.
>
> Given those, it says he IS NOT the same as us.
>
> But you then reject him.
>
> Note though, you were told. God did in fact give
> WAY TOO MUCH PROOF that he made it all.
>
> Atheists have NO EXCUSE for rejecting him.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Proof God described the planet density profile
> BEFORE science did:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
> (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
>
--
Brett Holmes
> >newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it
or
> >not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof
for
> >the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
> >anyway.
>
> That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
> time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
> insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
>
It's amazing how you can seemingly become the most hated person in the world
by turning off your computer for 24 hours. Please accept my apologies for
sleeping and going to work.
But I honestly think that deep down, all people know that God is as real as
the screens in front of their faces. After all, isn't an atheist just
someone who has failed in their search for God?
So picture this: If you truly believe that the new testament is completely
false, why get so offended when someone defends it? Or for that matter, why
spend so much time trying to disprove it at all? To me, the answer is
obvious.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post 'challenging
messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they are
answered.
I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
way, they are just the truth as I see it.
God bless you all.
Mike
>After all, isn't an atheist just
After all, isn't a Christian just someone who has failed in the search for
reason, rational thinking, truth, fear management, internal stability, and
intelligence? Isn't a Christian someone who just got caught up in the
traditional lies and fears instilled in them by their parents? Isn't a
christian someone who is so afraid of thinking about reality in real terms
that have to rely solely on a manuscript of fairy tale and fable that was
written in a completely different language almost 2000 years ago. Even if
that doctrine of fantasy were written in 20th century english you still
wouldn't understand what it was trying to tell you because YOU ARE TOO
FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. WAKE UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN.
William
>> That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
>> time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
>> insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
>>
>> William
>
>It's amazing how you can seemingly become the most hated person in the world
>by turning off your computer for 24 hours. Please accept my apologies for
>sleeping and going to work.
>
>But I honestly think that deep down, all people know that God is as real as
>the screens in front of their faces. After all, isn't an atheist just
>someone who has failed in their search for God?
You've got it. Many who are now atheists, agnostics and plain
unbelievers have spent a great deal of their lives looking to find
whether there is a god. And they have failed - in fact they have
failed to find even a scrap of objective evidence that any gods at all
exist.
Of course, they could bounce themselves into a belief in a God that
they have no evidence for, in the same way that many christians tell
us we should do. But then, we believe that such a process is not
only dishonest, it is also a dangerous basis on which to build our
beliefs. Once we start believing things are true in the absence of
evidence, we unwittingly make the same sort of mistake you have just
made in claiming - without a scrap of evidence - that all people know
that God is as real as their computer screens.
>So picture this: If you truly believe that the new testament is completely
>false, why get so offended when someone defends it? Or for that matter, why
>spend so much time trying to disprove it at all? To me, the answer is
>obvious.
Many of us have grown up and been damaged by well meaning religious
folk who have had far too much freedom to impose their unsuppoted
beliefs on others. Unchallenged imposition of religious doctrine is
one of the most dangerous influences in our society; and the irony is
that christians agree. There are christian groups in this country
who's sole purpose is to challenge and counter the growing Islam
faith; and there are even now protestant missionaries going to
challenge the RC churches in europe!!
So don't tell me that challenging a religious belief is considerd a
waste of time or out-of-court.
>It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post 'challenging
>messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they are
>answered.
Well, let's hope it has ceased to amaze you now.
And if my mild comment (in response to your statement that we wouldn't
believe in God even if definitive proof were provided) was a violent
reaction then let's hope you never get yourself into a robust debate
with anyone.
>I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
>way, they are just the truth as I see it.
Apology accepted, just try not to let it happen again.
William
Carl Rooker
Peter Walker wrote in message <170819991425191873%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>In article <9Bhu3.7080$x04.3...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, Carl Rooker
>he dies suggest that resurrection is impossible.
The all knowledgeable one has spoken!!!!
That is the whole point. It is impossible with men. God did create a
miracle.
>
>All the stories of resurrected god-men who predate your Jesus by
>centuries suggest that resurrection is a myth, and a common one at
>that.
There is an fancy word for that, but I forget what it is. It means that God
had given a little light to the ancients as a preview to what He would
accomplish in Christ.
Besides, this has no merit for the argument. Just because I may have 100
counterfiet 1$ bills in my wallet, does not mean that there are no geniune
1$ bills.
>
>>For the Ressurection we
>>have those who saw Christ afterward,
>
>Who never managed to write anything down in their lifetimes, leaving
>the accounts to be composed at best second hand by people who were not
>particularly familiar with the era about which they were writing (hence
>the terrible histical errors in the setting of the nativity accounts).
A lie spread by those who do not choose to believe. We have manuscripts and
parts thereof that date back to the second century, and quotes by others of
the original works. Read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel
if you dare to look at the other side of the coin.
About the alledged errors in the nativity, and example is that Quirinius was
not governor of Syria at the time mentioned in the Gospel of Luke----Wrong!
Archeology has found that Quirinius was governor twice, and that his first
time coincides nicely with the Gospel account.
>
>>an empty tomb,
>
>There is no empty tomb. There is no tomb at all. The fact that no one
>can find a specific burial site for some Yeshua ha Notzri is no more
>telling than one's ihnability to find the tomb for Arthur, Mithra, or
>any number of mythic or semi-historical figures whose deaths are
>purported to be temporary, and whose return foretold in legend.
You might make this argument now, but the fact is that at the time everyone
knew where the tomb was. Anyone could go take a look. IF the tomb was not
empty then the authorities could just exhume the bodies and kill
Christianity right on the spot. That plus the vitality of the message, and
the power of the Holy Spirit, is why Christiianity took off so fast. Anyone
could look at the evidence and see, should they care to do so.
Besides, have you not heard that when the muslems took over Jerusalem that
they covered over the tomb to hide it. By doing so they preserved it.
>
>>possibly His burial
>>shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
>>clearing up).
>
>This has been known to be a fraud for centuries. Church records admit
>as much.
This has been debated for centuries, not shown to be a fraud. You
misrepresent the facts here. Church officials very wisely continue the
debate, instead of dogmatically asserting either point of view. There is no
scientific test that could prove that this is Christ's shroud, because there
is no test known for the person of Jesus. However, the tests that have been
conducted to disprove it's authenticity have come up short.
This is why I said, "possibly His burial shroud."
>
>>>Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the
NT
>>>said he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
>>
>>You were there I suppose, or you know someone who was, or maybe you have a
>>manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
>>Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
>>
>>Ah, the classic anti-christian blunder, that your guesses and theories are
>>better evidence than the statements of the witness'es who were there.
>
>Pray, why then do even *Christian* scholars agree that the NT is not a
>first-hand account? You keep claiming that there were witnesses. Well,
>I just raised the dead. I have five hundred witnesses. Can you
>interview them? No. They're not available. Are you convinced of my
>claim?
Again, you misrepresent the case. SOME who call themselves Christians make
this claim, by no means all.
You just raised the dead? Have these five hundred people convinced anyone
else? Have thousands of people converted to your godhood? Has the
testimony of yourself, and these 500 altered the course of a nation, or the
course of history? Has anyone benifited from your miracle? Can I establish
a vital, living, dynamic relationship with this individual like Christians
have with their Lord (the final proof for us)? IF the authorities should
arrest any of these individuals, would they be willing to go to prison or
die for their testimony like many many Christians have had to do? How many
schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions have been dedicated to this
individual?
Since the answer to these questions is no, I would be justified if I called
you a liar.
God Bless
Carl
Carl Rooker
Matt wrote in message <37B9BC8F...@notgoats.co.uk>...
>Carl Rooker wrote:
>
>> What evidence do you have against the Ressurection? For the Ressurection
we
>> have those who saw Christ afterward, an empty tomb, possibly His burial
>> shroud (not proven for or against yet, but the age question seems to be
>> clearing up).
>
>> >> three
>> >> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
>> >
>
a
>> manuscript of someone making your assertion? I think the man who heard
>> Christ say that would be a far better witness than you.
>
>No, he was not there to know what was said or what wasnt, but neither
>were you there to see the alleged resurection.
>I am inclined to doubt that any of the original apostles are your close
>personal friends, or that you are over 2 millenia old. Your guess is as
>good as his, and the chances are, based on common every-day experience,
>that he is right, not you.
I did not say they were my close friends, I said they were Christs. It is
not my guess that they said these things, it is their assertion. My
challenge was to provide evidence that the NT was not written by the
Apostles, but by others, as the person I am debating has asserted.
Provide the evidence, instead of trying to twist my words.
>> Ah, the classic anti-christian blunder, that your guesses and theories
are
>> better evidence than the statements of the witness'es who were there.
>
>These statements and witnesses are no more reliable than any statements
>and witnesses called in , for example, the trial of a mafia don. They
>are all subject to lies and corruption to suit the context and force the
>desired conclusion without regard to the actual facts.
So, provide the evidence that they lied.
If I were to call you a liar without evidence, I could be sued. If I did so
in court, I could go to jail.
God Bless
Carl
Peter Walker
<roo...@dnx.net> wrote:
>Peter Walker wrote in message <170819991425191873%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>In article <9Bhu3.7080$x04.3...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, Carl Rooker
>><roo...@dnx.net> wrote:
>>
>>>What evidence do you have against the Ressurection?
>>
>>All the biochemical knowledge we have of what happens to someone when
>>he dies suggest that resurrection is impossible.
>
>The all knowledgeable one has spoken!!!!
>That is the whole point. It is impossible with men. God did create a
>miracle.
Hey, you wanted evidence against the resurrection. It can't happen. YOu
can shake your fist and make excuses for it, but that doesn't change
the fact that people don't rise from the dead, and any claim to the
contrary must have extraordinary supporting evidence, not the
assertions of ignorant sheep-herders and the gullible saps that follow
them millennia later.
>>All the stories of resurrected god-men who predate your Jesus by
>>centuries suggest that resurrection is a myth, and a common one at
>>that.
>
>There is an fancy word for that, but I forget what it is. It means that God
>had given a little light to the ancients as a preview to what He would
>accomplish in Christ.
Funny, your Christian forebeareres thought it was the devil trying to
create false Christs to deceive us. In all cases, it's excuses. Christ
is the resurrected god we all know of because Christians have been the
most successful at silencing and murdering those who think differently.
THat doesn't make the Christ-story any more credible than that of
Mithra or Osiris.
>Besides, this has no merit for the argument. Just because I may have 100
>counterfiet 1$ bills in my wallet, does not mean that there are no geniune
>1$ bills.
No, but if you have no way of telling which bill is real and which is
counterfeit, one would be making rather a stretch of credulity to claim
that one of the crisper bills is the real and original one, and that
the obviously older ones are all fakes.
>>>For the Ressurection we
>>>have those who saw Christ afterward,
>>
>>Who never managed to write anything down in their lifetimes, leaving
>>the accounts to be composed at best second hand by people who were not
>>particularly familiar with the era about which they were writing (hence
>>the terrible histical errors in the setting of the nativity accounts).
>
>A lie spread by those who do not choose to believe.
What, you mean like *honest* Biblical scholars?
>We have manuscripts and
>parts thereof that date back to the second century, and quotes by others of
>the original works. Read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel
>if you dare to look at the other side of the coin.
I'm familiar with McDowell, and by mentioning him you've just plastered
"I am a brainwashed ignorant idiot" on your forehead. McDowell is at
best an ignoramus and more often a downright liar. His "ancient authors
who mention Jesus" list is particularly pathetic, considering that 1)
most references attest to the existence to the Christian community, not
a historical Jesus, and 2) he completely dodges the fact that the
Testamonium Flavinium is a known forgery, inserted by his moral
forfathers: other liars for Christ made up and inserted the passage
rather clumsily in between closely-connected events without concern for
the context of the passages they sandwitched their propagandizing into.
>About the alledged errors in the nativity, and example is that Quirinius was
>not governor of Syria at the time mentioned in the Gospel of Luke----Wrong!
>Archeology has found that Quirinius was governor twice, and that his first
>time coincides nicely with the Gospel account.
References? (Other than Christian apologists) I'm not holding my breath.
And even allowing for this were it true, this is one of a dozen
historical errors in the nativity account: revealing that it is a
fiction composed a century after the events it alleges to describe.
>>There is no empty tomb. There is no tomb at all. The fact that no one
>>can find a specific burial site for some Yeshua ha Notzri is no more
>>telling than one's ihnability to find the tomb for Arthur, Mithra, or
>>any number of mythic or semi-historical figures whose deaths are
>>purported to be temporary, and whose return foretold in legend.
>
>You might make this argument now, but the fact is that at the time everyone
>knew where the tomb was.
Really? Pray, does Josephus mention the precise location of the tomb?
Do even the Gospels? Obviously not, considering the multiplicity of
"tombs" that have been discovered. Your claim that the location of the
tomb was known is rather indefensible, anf frankly pulled out of thin
air.
>Anyone could go take a look. IF the tomb was not
>empty then the authorities could just exhume the bodies and kill
>Christianity right on the spot.
Except, of course, the authorities - like all authorities - have better
things to do.
>That plus the vitality of the message, and
>the power of the Holy Spirit, is why Christiianity took off so fast. Anyone
>could look at the evidence and see, should they care to do so.
Christianity was one of dozens of competing resurrected-god cults, and
only took off when Constantine made it the official religion of the
Empire, and when a successor officially banned other religions a couple
Emperors later.
And *even* *then*, Christianity spent the entire middle ages stamping
out indigenous religions as "heresy".
Christianity took off solely because people in power converted to it,
and used force, coercion, and outright slaughter to force it on their
populace.
>Besides, have you not heard that when the muslems took over Jerusalem that
>they covered over the tomb to hide it. By doing so they preserved it.
Yawn. You really *are* dishonest, aren't you. No mention here that by
the time the Muslims took Jerusalem, that Christian shrines had built
up around several claimed sites for the "tomb". You'd like us to
believe that it was some undeveloped cave Muslims were afraid someone
would open up to find empty. How perfectly assinine.
>>Pray, why then do even *Christian* scholars agree that the NT is not a
>>first-hand account? You keep claiming that there were witnesses. Well,
>>I just raised the dead. I have five hundred witnesses. Can you
>>interview them? No. They're not available. Are you convinced of my
>>claim?
>
>Again, you misrepresent the case. SOME who call themselves Christians make
>this claim, by no means all.
Oh, I see, if someone who actually knows something about the texts and
the history, they're just "calling themselves Christians". Would you
people sort your shit out amongst yourselves before you come bring it
to us?
>You just raised the dead? Have these five hundred people convinced anyone
>else? Have thousands of people converted to your godhood? Has the
>testimony of yourself, and these 500 altered the course of a nation, or the
>course of history? Has anyone benifited from your miracle?
Yep.
But I'm afraid I can't let you see the evidence. You'll juat have to
take my word on it. Well, I'll spin some specious feel-good-sounding
arguments so people who already believe can nod their heads in assent,
but you won't believe those arguments until you believe their
conclusion.
Sound familiar, cult-boy?
Nathan H. Gesner
time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a literal
48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a true
seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to receive
them.
In Him,
Nathan Gesner
John Quinley wrote:
> Stan Paul wrote in message <37B9669A...@bowdoin.edu>...
> >Brett Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
> >> detail, there would be no need for faith.
> >
> >Ahh, the classic xtian blunder, assuming that 'faith' means 'belief in
> >something even though there is no evidence to back it up', which is true as
> far
> >as it goes, but then they assume that it also means 'belief in something
> even
> >though there is ample evidence to the contrary' which, as we all know, is
> >actually the definition of delusion.
> >
> >> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then
> three
> >> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
> >
> >Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the NT
> said
> >he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
> >
> >>
> >
Sterling Crowe
Nathan H. Gesner <nge...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:37BAD22D...@rocketmail.com...
> Jesus died on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. That is three days. The
last
> time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a
literal
> 48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a
true
> seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to
receive
> them.
When are you guys going to learn to read your own Bible?
Matt:12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth.
That's three days and three nights, bippy. Not just "three days" not "two
nights and one day" (in the ground after dark on Friday, missing at dawn on
Sunday), three days and three nights.
All I know is that if the ad promises me three days and three nights in
sunny Alcapulco, I'd better get more than Jesus got in the ground.
--
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
Sterling Crowe
#1168, Knight of BAAWA
The church is near,
but the road is icy.
The tavern is far,
but I will walk carefully.
-Ukranian proverb
A. O'Reilly
enlightened us with...
> Jesus died on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. That is three days. The last
> time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a literal
> 48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a true
> seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to receive
> them.
Right, and he also was born on December 25.
--
A. O'Reilly Atheist #1153
==============================================
I feel my body weakened by the years,
As people turn to gods of cruel design.
Is it that they fear the pain of death?
Or could it be they fear the joy of life?
hes...@my-deja.com
"Carl Rooker" <roo...@dnx.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Walker wrote in message
<170819991425191873%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
> >In article <9Bhu3.7080$x04.3...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, Carl Rooker
> ><roo...@dnx.net> wrote:
> >
> >>What evidence do you have against the Ressurection?
> >
> >All the biochemical knowledge we have of what happens to someone when
> >he dies suggest that resurrection is impossible.
>
> The all knowledgeable one has spoken!!!!
> That is the whole point. It is impossible with men. God did create a
> miracle.
Circular logic invoking the powers of the god you
have not yet shown exists.
Not to mention the highly dubious evidence of a god
magically altering the properties of the universe.
> >All the stories of resurrected god-men who predate your Jesus by
> >centuries suggest that resurrection is a myth, and a common one at
> >that.
>
> There is an fancy word for that, but I forget what it is.
> It means that God had given a little light to the ancients
> as a preview to what He would accomplish in Christ.
> Besides, this has no merit for the argument. Just because
> I may have 100 counterfiet 1$ bills in my wallet, does not
> mean that there are no geniune 1$ bills.
So how to you know there is a real bill? Particuarlly
when you've accepted that 99 of the bills are fake.
Good Health
William
>Jesus died on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. That is three days. The last
>time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a literal
>48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a true
>seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to receive
>them.
Died on Friday and rose on Sunday means two nights. Matt 12:40
claims it would be three nights. That's the problem - which your post
seems to confirm.
William
Morat
"Nathan H. Gesner" wrote:
> Jesus died on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. That is three days. The last
> time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a literal
> 48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a true
> seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to receive
> them.
>
> In Him,
>
> Nathan Gesner
>
You see..I could believe in a God who could stay dead three days. But not less.
Sorry. Darn.
>
> John Quinley wrote:
>
> > Stan Paul wrote in message <37B9669A...@bowdoin.edu>...
> > >Brett Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also, consider this: If all biblical theology was 100% complete in every
> > >> detail, there would be no need for faith.
> > >
> > >Ahh, the classic xtian blunder, assuming that 'faith' means 'belief in
> > >something even though there is no evidence to back it up', which is true as
> > far
> > >as it goes, but then they assume that it also means 'belief in something
> > even
> > >though there is ample evidence to the contrary' which, as we all know, is
> > >actually the definition of delusion.
> > >
> > >> But here's the best proof of all: Jesus said he would be killed, then
> > three
> > >> days later he would rise from the dead. Then he did.
> > >
> > >Actually, Christ never said that, the person who wrote that part of the NT
> > said
> > >he said it, in an effort to give more credibility to his myth.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >St Spaul
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and lets not forget that those same stories state that Jesus played
> > dead for about 38 hours, or 1 1/2 days.
> >
> > JQ
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind must without a doubt be the most conceited race
in the universe, for who else believes that God has
nothing better to do than sit around all day and help
him out of tight spots? ---Alan Dean Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abner Mintz
> But I honestly think that deep down, all people know that God is as real
as
"You're free to think that - but you are, IMO, wrong. Are you
*really* claiming that every non-Christian in the world really
knows that the Christian god exists? I find that rather arrogant."
> After all, isn't an atheist just
> someone who has failed in their search for God?
"Nope. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods.
*Some* atheists searched for God and failed. Some never searched
at all. It varies with the atheist."
> So picture this: If you truly believe that the new testament is
completely
> false, why get so offended when someone defends it?
"I don't. I only get offended when someone prosletyzes at me."
> Or for that matter, why
> spend so much time trying to disprove it at all? To me, the answer is
> obvious.
"To me, the answer is obvious as well - it's a defense against all
the prosletyzers. Honestly, I wouldn't have any objection to
Christianity at all if so many Christians didn't call me immoral,
evil, etc."
> It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post
'challenging
> messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they
are
> answered.
"The people who are responding to you aren't the person who posted
the challenging message to both Christian and atheist newsgroups.
The original poster - the troublemaker, let's call him - is long gone,
but his legacy is still around. He posted a message that got some
Christians to respond, which caused some atheists to respond, which
caused ..."
"IMO, both groups have been victimized by this person. The evils
of crossposting are vast ..."
"Again IMO, the best way to kill off crossposted threads is to say 'I'm
taking this to only such-and-such group, then set the followups
appropriately. (Alas, my posting software is too primitive to do so.)
If you set it only to a Christian group, odds are all the atheists will
'disappear' from the discussion. If you set it to an atheist group ...
you get the idea."
"Unfortunately, this will only help a bit, since inevitably *someone*
(atheist or Christian, it doesn't really matter) ends up doing another
provokative crosspost trying to stir up trouble."
> I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
> way, they are just the truth as I see it.
"Same here - but a couple of IMO's, I thinks, etc. might help the
situation."
Naiadna
rbccrc wrote:
>I see. So, since a gospel writer says that 500 people saw Christ, it
>MUST be true. Hmmm. Ok, then by your logic, Joseph Smith really did
>find the golden tablets of Moroni, because he said he had witnesses. You
>must be a Mormon then. No?
Actually, those witnesses themselves wrote sworn afadavits as to what they saw.
You may not believe them, but that doesn't mean that there were not witnesses,
and that those witnesses didn't attest to what Joseph Smith claimed to see.
If your logic is that you cannot believe any witness you aren't able to
interview personally, then your logic is flawed...and your method is untenable.
> I am levitating as I write these words. I have witness standing here.
>Unfortunately you can't interview them, but hey, I said they saw it and
>by your reasoning that's all it takes. I'm glad you believe me. No?
I missed the post to which this was a reply, but it seems to me that there is a
vast difference between what the poster described, a witness personally
repeating what HE heard Jesus say, and your taking it further...that this is
the same thing as someone claiming that there were witnesses, but not producing
them.
Certainly that is what you are doing when you compare the statements of the
witnesses themselves with anothers' claim that there were some, and call both
claims equal.
Shoot, that's like calling the following two sentences the same:
"I saw Adam swipe the cookies" and
"George said that there were witnesses who said they saw Adam swipe the
cookies. Dunno where they are, but George said somebody saw him..."
Get the two concepts straight, and then criticise.
Naiadna
***Religious debates require four positions: what I believe, what you believe,
what you think I believe and what I think you believe. Positions 1 & 2 should
be the same as 3 & 4, but that would take all the fun out of it.***
Ed Valentine
1. The existence of an infinite Being (GOD) cannot be proven by finite
man. Each of us must just accept that GOD created the universe or find out who
did. Of course this is ridiculous logically. GOD is defined as the force that
created the universe and He exists regardless of what name you give him. This
should be evident to intelligent beings even if the Bible didn't exist.
2. It is too late for #2. Maybe next time.
"Jessica M. Wolfman" wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:29:10 GMT, "Brett Holmes" <bho...@q-net.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> >I think that anyone who would post / read messages on any of these
> >> >newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it
> >or
> >> >not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof
> >for
> >> >the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
> >> >anyway.
> >>
> >> That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
> >> time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
> >> insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
> >>
> >> William
> >
> >It's amazing how you can seemingly become the most hated person in the world
> >by turning off your computer for 24 hours. Please accept my apologies for
> >sleeping and going to work.
> >
> >But I honestly think that deep down, all people know that God is as real as
> >the screens in front of their faces. After all, isn't an atheist just
> >someone who has failed in their search for God?
> >
> >So picture this: If you truly believe that the new testament is completely
> >false, why get so offended when someone defends it? Or for that matter, why
> >spend so much time trying to disprove it at all? To me, the answer is
> >obvious.
>
> Have you thought of this answer: The bible exists. The christian religion
> exists. People believe that god exists, and are willing to do a great deal of
> things in the name of their god. Somethings these are good things -- some people
> are willing to help the needy in the name of their god, for instance. However,
> it certainly seems that, much more often, people do some pretty nasty things in
> the name of god. Wars, hurting "infidels", discrimination, and much more.
> Atheists try to disprove the bible so that, just maybe, people won't do nasty
> things because of what the bible says.
>
> >It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post 'challenging
> >messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they are
> >answered.
> >
> >I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
> >way, they are just the truth as I see it.
> >
> >God bless you all.
> >
> >
>
> Jessica Wolfman
> sa #1002
>
> "No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions."
> -- Charles P. Steinmetz
>
> Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
Jessica M. Wolfman
Naiadna
>However,
>it certainly seems that, much more often, people do some pretty nasty things
>in
>the name of god. Wars, hurting "infidels", discrimination, and much more.
>Atheists try to disprove the bible so that, just maybe, people won't do nasty
>things because of what the bible says.
I am constantly amazed that people of good intent and ordinarily logical
thinking haven't figured this out yet;
There ARE only two main possibilities, you realize; either
A. God exists in some form, or
B. God does not exist.
IF God exists, then the problem becomes figuring out what He/She/They want, if
indeed They want anything at all from us. Considering that if God exists, His
(He, because I AM a theist and thus believe and my God is a 'he', deal with
it..) intellect and power are as far beyond our ability to understand as ours
is above the ability of an earthworm. Only if He gives us a hint Himself could
we possibly begin to understand what He is, and then only dimly.
If He doesn't exist, then one certainly can't blame Him, can one? The excuses
of religion are no more heinous than the excuse of people who would gain power
for other reasons, and use genetics or communism or some other 'utopian' ideal
to kill those who would disagree. Some of those killings are done for the
express purpose of ridding the state of theists...yet atheists do not blame
atheism; they put the blame, rightfully, on the men who use the excuse.
Why they can't see that the same thing aplies to theism I can NOT
understand...for ridding the world of atheism or any of the myriad belief
systems that encorporate atheism as an integral part of the ideas will not
remove evil from the world.......and atheists realize this.
Trouble is, many of you seem to think that eliminating religion WILL do the
job. What's with the double standard, people? It isn't the belief systems used
as an excuse that cause the problems. It's the people who twist them to their
own ends that do, whether that belief system is inherently theist or 'a'.
Javacrucian
Naiadna wrote:
>
> rbccrc wrote:
>
> >I see. So, since a gospel writer says that 500 people saw Christ, it
> >MUST be true. Hmmm. Ok, then by your logic, Joseph Smith really did
> >find the golden tablets of Moroni, because he said he had witnesses. You
> >must be a Mormon then. No?
>
> Actually, those witnesses themselves wrote sworn afadavits as to what they saw.
> You may not believe them, but that doesn't mean that there were not witnesses,
> and that those witnesses didn't attest to what Joseph Smith claimed to see.
>
> If your logic is that you cannot believe any witness you aren't able to
> interview personally, then your logic is flawed...and your method is untenable.
That wasn't my position, see below. . .
>
> > I am levitating as I write these words. I have witness standing here.
> >Unfortunately you can't interview them, but hey, I said they saw it and
> >by your reasoning that's all it takes. I'm glad you believe me. No?
>
> I missed the post to which this was a reply,
Yes, that is obvious. You are beating at the air here; my post was
largely sarcastic and also supportive of what you are saying now.
> but it seems to me that there is a
> vast difference between what the poster described, a witness personally
> repeating what HE heard Jesus say, and your taking it further...that this is
> the same thing as someone claiming that there were witnesses, but not producing
> them.
Your second example is what the poster (Fake51) was saying. His claim
was that 500 people saw Christ resurrected. My point in response was
that there are no records by these 500 people to that effect. IOW--
anybody can say that X number of people saw Y, but that does nothing to
prove that "they" did, or that "they" even existed. The point you raise
about Joseph Smith having witnesses who signed sworn affidavits is
valid, but would not have been relevant as Fake51 would have rejected
anything Smith said out of hand. It was an example I picked to make a
point against a fundamentalist christian, not a Latter Day Saint.
> Certainly that is what you are doing when you compare the statements of the
> witnesses themselves with anothers' claim that there were some, and call both
> claims equal.
>
> Shoot, that's like calling the following two sentences the same:
>
> "I saw Adam swipe the cookies" and
> "George said that there were witnesses who said they saw Adam swipe the
> cookies. Dunno where they are, but George said somebody saw him..."
Yes, exactly. You are helping me prove that point further, thanks.
> Get the two concepts straight, and then criticise.
Be careful to know just what it is you are replying to before posting!
That's ok though, no hard feelings.
William
>Jessica, Very interesting thoughts. I would like to add a couple of my own.
>
>1. The existence of an infinite Being (GOD) cannot be proven by finite
> man.
No existence can ultimately be proven; all we can do is draw
conclusions from the available evidence. Unfortunately there is no
evidence for the existence of any gods. Doesn't it strike you as odd
that a 'finite' human can make his existence known with no difficulty
and with sufficient certainty to remove all reasonable doubt; but an
omniscient/omnipotent God can't (or won't) do the same.
No-one is asking for 100% proof of existence; we accept that we
cannot get that for the existence of any entity. And when proposing
the existence of some being, far in advance of ourselves, we could not
know if the evidence was being manipulated to totally deceive us. But
that, of course, is not a reason for not providing any.
Take the example of someone before a court being asked to show that a
key witness actually exists. The court is not going to be satisfied
with the excuse that since the prosecution could always say that the
evidence is not 100% conclusive, what is the point in presenting any
evidence at all.
>Each of us must just accept that GOD created the universe or find out who
>did.
Or we might have to accept that no-one created it; or that 3 million
gods created it; or that a god's last dying act was to create it, or
that some minor god created it accidentally etc . . without objective
supporting evidence, any proposition is as likely, or unlikely, as any
other.
>Of course this is ridiculous logically. GOD is defined as the force that
>created the universe and He exists regardless of what name you give him.
>This should be evident to intelligent beings even if the Bible didn't exist.
See above
William
Niall McAuley
> I missed the post to which this was a reply,
... and you missed the point. The reference was to the 500 witnesses
to Jesus's resurrection, who are not named, did not write an account
and are strictly hearsay.
> Certainly that is what you are doing when you compare the statements of the
> witnesses themselves with anothers' claim that there were some, and call both
> claims equal.
Again, you miss the point. Javacrucian was using the *better* status
of the Joseph Smith witnesses to show that Carl is inconsistent in
his acceptance of supposed eye witness accounts.
> Get the two concepts straight, and then criticise.
Read the damn thread before shooting your mouth off.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, not es]
Jessica M. Wolfman
Generally because those people did *not* actually kill people in the name of
atheism. Religion is a powerful thing, and it demands certain things of people
which don't mesh with what the leaders in some societies want (for instance, the
bible says you can't serve two masters at once, which kind of makes it hard to
have everyone worship *you*). So it makes sense, if you want people to follow
only *you*, to get rid of religion, so there is no "higher authority" that
people revere more than you. Is this right? Hell, no. But is it atheism that
makes them do this, or is it a simple desire for power?
>Why they can't see that the same thing aplies to theism I can NOT
>understand...for ridding the world of atheism or any of the myriad belief
>systems that encorporate atheism as an integral part of the ideas will not
>remove evil from the world.......and atheists realize this.
Here's the big problem, though: there aren't any atheist beliefs, only a single
lack of belief. Sure, some atheists believe that there is no god, but this
belief is not shared by all atheists. But there is no common belief in atheism
that say "theism bad" or "religion must go" or anything like that. Sure, a lot
of atheists think religion is bad, but then again, a lot of atheists think Monty
Python is really funny -- and that's not a requirement of atheism, either. So
while one person may actually commit a crime because his lack-of-belief in god
(or his belief in no god) tells him to (how this would come about, I can't
imagine), it doesn't really refelct on other atheists, or atheism as a whole,
because there is no "atheist commandment" that says to do this, nor does the
"lack-of-belief" in god (or belief in no god) say anywhere, "go do this in my
name".
On the other hand, religions *do* have commandments. If a theist does something
that his religion tells him to do, well, isn't is pretty safe to say that the
religion *is* at fault? Oh, sure, it's very possible that he did it for
non-religious reasons, but a lot of the time, this isn't the case. For example,
on this newsgroup, we've had people who think women are inferior because their
religion says so -- and for no other reason. They try to justify it -- IIRC, one
person claimed you could tell women were inferior because they had smaller
muscles -- but the only reason they came to this conclusion was their religion
said so. There is no real-world reason to think that women are inferior -- for
the most part, or differences equal out, but people have said that because Eve
was fooled, all women are foolish, and this has led to many many years of
sexism.
Again: atheism doesn't say anything like that. There isn't an atheist holy book
that tells us to do anything. If someone *were* to commit a crime in the name of
atheism, I know that *I* would think that person to be highly messed up. But I
really couldn't say that they twisted a belief system, because there is no
belief system to twist. At the most, all you could do is say that *that*
person's atheism was very wrong -- my atheism says absolutely nothing about
anything, except that I don't believe in gods.
But if someone went out and, say, killed someone for for working on the sabbath
because the bible says to do so, then you can't claim that that person wasn't
influenced by his religion -- the bible *does* say to kill people who work the
sabbath. Of course, nowadays people don't kill people for doing this (not to my
knowledge, at any rate), which is a good thing. But there were -- and possibly
are -- laws that forbid stores from opening on Sundays, which can be really
inconvienent for people who don't follow that religion (not the best example, I
know, but an example of people doing things because their religion says so,
nevertheless).
>Trouble is, many of you seem to think that eliminating religion WILL do the
>job.
No, I don't think it will get rid of all crime. But it will give many people one
less excuse to commit crimes. There will still be people who hate others, but
they'd have to find another excuse, and there is no excuse more powerful than
religion. After all, who can argue with an infallible source? You can argue with
science, and you can argue with other humans, and you can say "no, I'm not going
to do this because it doesn't make sense" to either of them, but how can you
argue with or say no to a god who you believe has "intellect and power... as far
beyond our ability to understand as ours is above the ability of an earthworm"?
After all, while you may not want to kill someone, if your oh-so-powerful god
says so, well, he must have his reasons, right?
If your god told you to do something, would you do it? Even if it involved
killing someone? Most people, when I ask the question, say "god wouldn't ask me
to kill anyone", while never actually answering the question, and I can only
assume that means that they wouldn't *want* to do it, but would feel that they
would *have* to do it, and didn't want to say so, because who wants it known
that they would be eager to kill for someone else?
>What's with the double standard, people? It isn't the belief systems used
>as an excuse that cause the problems. It's the people who twist them to their
>own ends that do, whether that belief system is inherently theist or 'a'.
>
>Naiadna
>***Religious debates require four positions: what I believe, what you believe,
>what you think I believe and what I think you believe. Positions 1 & 2 should
>be the same as 3 & 4, but that would take all the fun out of it.***
Jessica Wolfman
Jessica M. Wolfman
>Jessica, Very interesting thoughts. I would like to add a couple of my own.
> 1. The existence of an infinite Being (GOD) cannot be proven by finite
>man. Each of us must just accept that GOD created the universe or find out who
>did. Of course this is ridiculous logically. GOD is defined as the force that
>created the universe and He exists regardless of what name you give him. This
>should be evident to intelligent beings even if the Bible didn't exist.
Not really. I see no reason to assume that a "who" created the universe
(especially since that just begs the question of who created the who who created
the universe, and then, who created the who that created the who that created
the universe, ad nauseum). Nor do I need to anthropomorphise the universe and
call it god. I don't believe that the universe has a mind to it, and while you
are free to call it God, it's just as good a name as "Fred". Or even "Jessica".
All hail *me*!
But anyway, if you believe that an infinite god can't be proven, then why
believe that it exists?
> 2. It is too late for #2. Maybe next time.
>
>"Jessica M. Wolfman" wrote:
>
>> are willing to help the needy in the name of their god, for instance. However,
>> it certainly seems that, much more often, people do some pretty nasty things in
>> the name of god. Wars, hurting "infidels", discrimination, and much more.
>> Atheists try to disprove the bible so that, just maybe, people won't do nasty
>> things because of what the bible says.
>>
>> >It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post 'challenging
>> >messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they are
>> >answered.
>> >
>> >I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
>> >way, they are just the truth as I see it.
>> >
>> >God bless you all.
>> >
>> >
>>
Nathan H. Gesner
17:22,23
20:18,19
27:62-64
Mark 8:31
9:31
10:32-34
14:58
Luke 9:22
John 2:18-21
The verse you reference is just one of many, hardly the preponderance of
evidence. And the earth does not have a literal "heart" so it must be
referencing something else. Could it be that it is referencing the town he was
buried in as the "heart of the earth"? Once again, it is impossible to see the
forest because you are busy staring at the bark of a tree.
And the true interpretation of Jonah reveals that he was swallowed by a "great
fish", not a whale which is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. Of course, this
probably sounds impossible as well, right? I can get you a copy of the news
story where the exact same thing happened to a fisherman in the 1800s, and lived
to tell the story! E-mail me if you really care for the truth.
My prayers are with all of you, as this will be my last posting to this NG. I
have realized that there are too few people who honestly want to know the truth,
and I don't want to spend my time feeding information to someone who is not
wanting it. Thanks for everything!
Nathan Gesner
Sterling Crowe wrote:
> Nathan H. Gesner <nge...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37BAD22D...@rocketmail.com...
> > Jesus died on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. That is three days. The
> last
> > time I told someone I was going camping for the weekend, I didn't mean a
> literal
> > 48 hours! You guys need to stop digging and look at the scripture with a
> true
> > seekers heart. God will reveal the answers when you are willing to
> receive
> > them.
>
> When are you guys going to learn to read your own Bible?
>
> Matt:12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
> belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
> of the earth.
>
> That's three days and three nights, bippy. Not just "three days" not "two
> nights and one day" (in the ground after dark on Friday, missing at dawn on
> Sunday), three days and three nights.
> All I know is that if the ad promises me three days and three nights in
> sunny Alcapulco, I'd better get more than Jesus got in the ground.
>
> --
> Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
>
> Sterling Crowe
> #1168, Knight of BAAWA
>
> The church is near,
> but the road is icy.
> The tavern is far,
> but I will walk carefully.
> -Ukranian proverb
>
> > In Him,
> >
> > Nathan Gesner
> >
> >
> >
Christopher A. Lee
Nathan H. Gesner <nge...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>My prayers are with all of you,
You arrogant, offensive twat.
> as this will be my last posting
>to this NG.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
> I have realized that there are too few people who
>honestly want to know the truth, and I don't want to spend my
Oh, the irony - like most cross-posting Christians he can't
tell the difference between "whet he believes", and "truth".
And he accuses *us* of being dishonest.
Before you come back, take a close OBJECTIVE look at your
beliefs, when you realise that no matter how sincere you are,
that non-Christians have no reason whatsoever to share them.
Accept that you accept them purely on your own subjective
faith, and just let those outside your religion live and
live. You will be a better person for it.
>time feeding information to someone who is not wanting it.
There was no information content in what you said.
Paul King
nai...@aol.com (Naiadna) wrote:
>
>wolfmoon stated:
>
>>However,
>>it certainly seems that, much more often, people do some pretty nasty things
>>in
>>the name of god. Wars, hurting "infidels", discrimination, and much more.
>>Atheists try to disprove the bible so that, just maybe, people won't do nasty
>>things because of what the bible says.
>
>I am constantly amazed that people of good intent and ordinarily logical
>thinking haven't figured this out yet;
>
[irrelevent]
>
>If He doesn't exist, then one certainly can't blame Him, can one?
Reread what you are responding to. Religion is being blamed, not God.
The excuses
>of religion are no more heinous than the excuse of people who would gain power
>for other reasons, and use genetics or communism or some other 'utopian' ideal
>to kill those who would disagree.
And no less heinous. And *that* is the point. "By their fruit you will
know them" - doesn;t that evil disqualify the religion from it's claims of
moral superiority and thus it's *claims* to represent God.
Some of those killings are done for the
>express purpose of ridding the state of theists...
Las time you said this you were reduced to supporting it by claiming that
Pol Pot killed Buddhists because they were *almost* theists - and you were
simply guessing as to his motivations even then. You seemed rather upset
that I wouldn;t accept a pure guess on your part as an established fact.
yet atheists do not blame
>atheism; they put the blame, rightfully, on the men who use the excuse.
>
>Why they can't see that the same thing aplies to theism I can NOT
>understand...
Perhaps they do and you fail to understand the arguments you are responding
to. In my experience when *Gods* is "blamed" it is becuase the Bible
attributes responsibility to God - as in the massacres of Joshua. i.e. it
is the *Biblical depiction* of God that is being criticised. In other
cases it *is* the religion that is blamed - and that *is* the case in the
argument that you are responding to.
How many Americans believe that removing communism is a good thing ? Think
about that.
Jeff Heidman
"Nathan H. Gesner" wrote:
>My prayers are with all of you, as this will be my last posting to this NG. I
> have realized that there are too few people who honestly want to know the truth,
> and I don't want to spend my time feeding information to someone who is not
> wanting it. Thanks for everything!
>
> Nathan Gesner
In the great Monty Python tradition:
Run Away!! Run Away!!!
Eric Gunnerson
news:19990818224323...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> Trouble is, many of you seem to think that eliminating religion WILL do
the
used
> as an excuse that cause the problems. It's the people who twist them to
their
> own ends that do, whether that belief system is inherently theist or 'a'.
The belief systems are contributory, because they set up the envornment in
which people can commit atrocities.
There are lots of people that believe in astrology, for example, but I think
if you gave these people a horoscope that told them the planets wanted them
to kill somebody, they would look at you as if you had lost your mind.
Belief systems that make moral presentations will always be suspect; you
merely have to get people to accept the belief system, and then you modify
the morality to say what you want, and then you take advantage with those
that are left.
Not having the belief system isn't the whole solution; you need people to
have rational morality, but you're more likely to end up with isolated cases
rather than genocide/crusades/war.
a.drentje
Mike heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>
>>After all, isn't an atheist just
>
>reason, rational thinking, truth, fear management, internal stability, and
>intelligence?
Nope I found my belief to be reasonable, rational, truthful and not scary at
all.
Isn't a Christian someone who just got caught up in the
>traditional lies and fears instilled in them by their parents?
Nope again my parents were and are not christians.
Isn't a
>christian someone who is so afraid of thinking about reality in real terms
Nope, someone who doesn't want to consider the possibilty of a God is afraid
of thinking about reality.
>that have to rely solely on a manuscript of fairy tale and fable that was
>written in a completely different language almost 2000 years ago. Even if
>that doctrine of fantasy were written in 20th century english you still
>wouldn't understand what it was trying to tell you because YOU ARE TOO
>FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. WAKE UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN.
That last remark just shows how your brain functions. Nothing to say, so
scream.
a.d.
Aaron I. Spielman
<bho...@q-net.net.au> wrote:
> > >I think that anyone who would post / read messages on any of these
> > >newsgroups knows the answer to all these questions, whether they admit it
> or
> > >not. There doesn't appear to be much point in providing definitive proof
> for
> > >the existence of God, because those who need it the most won't believe it
> > >anyway.
> >
> > That's one of the most arrogant statements I have heard for a long
> > time. Has christian apologetics really descended to this kind of
> > insulting nonsense? Perhaps it has.
> >
> > William
>
> It's amazing how you can seemingly become the most hated person in the world
> by turning off your computer for 24 hours. Please accept my apologies for
> sleeping and going to work.
Deal with it, bucko.
> But I honestly think that deep down, all people know that God is as real as
> the screens in front of their faces. After all, isn't an atheist just
> someone who has failed in their search for God?
No. AN atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods. How bloody
hard is this to understand? Just because _you_ have trouble accepting our
self-definitions doesn't make you right.
> So picture this: If you truly believe that the new testament is completely
> false, why get so offended when someone defends it? Or for that matter, why
> spend so much time trying to disprove it at all? To me, the answer is
> obvious.
1) I'm not trying to disprove it. It does fine on it's own.
2) I have no problem when someone "defends" it - as long as they don't do
it to me, in a place (alt.atheism) where they are _explicitly_ not wanted,
and as long as they don't use it to justify forcing their moiral code down
my throat.
"Live and let live" would be a really nice thing, as long as religionists
would actually _practice_ it.
> It never ceases to amaze me that people will quite happily post 'challenging
> messages' on christian newsgroups, and then react so violently when they are
> answered.
It's done _far_ more often in the reverse, as I'm sure you are aware.
> I apologise if my letters seem arrogant. I do not intend them to be that
> way, they are just the truth as I see it.
Apologies for being arrogant, _not_ excepted.
> God bless you all.
No thanks. I've had enough psychosis for this life.
--
Aaron I. Spielman | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young - because they
aa...@rockethouse.net | Cussard #.357 | see it's no use living if you've
www.rockethouse.net | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."
Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC | ---John Barrymore
G & G
a.drentje wrote in message <7phtl9$9nu$1...@news.telekabel.nl>...
>
>Mike heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>>
>>
>>reason, rational thinking, truth, fear management, internal stability, and
>>intelligence?
>
>Nope I found my belief to be reasonable, rational, truthful and not scary
at
>all.
>
> Isn't a Christian someone who just got caught up in the
>>traditional lies and fears instilled in them by their parents?
>
>Nope again my parents were and are not christians.
>
>Isn't a
>>christian someone who is so afraid of thinking about reality in real terms
>
>Nope, someone who doesn't want to consider the possibilty of a God is
afraid
>of thinking about reality.
Glenn R. wrote:
Please explain how your belief in god is, as you say it, reasonable,
rational, truthful, and reality. I find it quite interesting that you say
it is all of these things but gave no examples of why.
<SNIP>
Naiadna
> The excuses
>>of religion are no more heinous than the excuse of people who would gain
>power
>>for other reasons, and use genetics or communism or some other 'utopian'
>ideal
>>to kill those who would disagree.
>
>And no less heinous.
I was about to agree with you...and then it occurred to me that atheistic
leaders have killed more people in the last century than theists have managed
in the last millenium..but then, this could simply be a matter of better
technology. You could be right....no less and no more heinous, just that the
atheists lately have been better at it.
> And *that* is the point. "By their fruit you will
>know them" - doesn;t that evil disqualify the religion from it's claims of
>moral superiority and thus it's *claims* to represent God.
I would say so....unless one investigates the religion in question and finds
that those who use it to justify such actions are actually breaking it's laws
to do so....
After all, can one really blame any belief system for the actions of those who
break its' rules?
> Some of those killings are done for the
>>express purpose of ridding the state of theists...
>
>Las time you said this you were reduced to supporting it by claiming that
>Pol Pot killed Buddhists because they were *almost* theists
You are going to have to give me a quote on that one, bub. I said no such
thing.
> - and you were
>simply guessing as to his motivations even then. You seemed rather upset
>that I wouldn;t accept a pure guess on your part as an established fact.
You are going to have to provide quotes for this one, I honestly don't
recognise the conversation.
>yet atheists do not blame
>>atheism; they put the blame, rightfully, on the men who use the excuse.
>>
>>Why they can't see that the same thing aplies to theism I can NOT
>>understand...
>
>Perhaps they do and you fail to understand the arguments you are responding
>to. In my experience when *Gods* is "blamed" it is becuase the Bible
>attributes responsibility to God - as in the massacres of Joshua. i.e. it
>is the *Biblical depiction* of God that is being criticised.
Excuse me, but what else would you expect? When atrocities are commited by
atheists, the phrase may be 'for the good of the state' or something similar.
What difference does it make who gets blamed?
> In other
>cases it *is* the religion that is blamed - and that *is* the case in the
>argument that you are responding to.
I am responding to the statement that theism is to blame for 1; religious
rules, and 2; for the actions of people who disobey their own religious rules
even while using their religion to justify atrocity.
This, while insisting that even if an atheist kills for the purpose of ridding
himself of theists, that atheism isn't a factor in his motivations.
You simply cannot have it both ways. If atheistic Communists who
persecute/alienate/ostracise theists because theism is considered contrary to
the 'good of the people' or the state cannot be said to have atheism as any
part of their motivations, or to be doing anything 'in the name of' atheism,
then the ancient Mayans who killed hundreds of prisoners every day in direct
sacrafice to their gods weren't doing THAT 'in the name of theism', either.
...and I do wish that someone would explain to me, in words of one sylable,
what the difference is between doing something 'in the name of atheism' and
doing something to get rid of or fight theism in order to eliminate the
worship/belief in a deity.
The results and motivation are the same, either way.....and a difference that
makes no difference IS no difference.
>How many Americans believe that removing communism is a good thing ? Think
>about that.
Most Americans do believe that, when they think about it. However, considering
that communism has pretty much removed itself, having fallen under it's own
economic stupidities, I don't suppose most people think about it much. After
all, they didn't exactly win the cold war, and where IS the Soviet Union?
Naiadna
>The belief systems are contributory, because they set up the envornment in
>which people can commit atrocities.
In many cases this is true. My problem is with those who believe that only
religious belief systems have problems, and that any belief system with an
atheistic component is therefore better unilaterally. They are not...and indeed
are every inch as prone to misuse as the most restrictive of religions.
That's what amazes me, the attitude that atheism is somehow pure, and the cure
for all the evil of the planet.
This is probably the wierdest belief I have ever come across...because if
atheists are correct, and there IS no God, then how do you figure that people
are going to change or grow kind and loving if they suddenly realize it? The
atrocities will still happen, the killings and the murders....only the excuses
would change, and THEN what will you blame?
>There are lots of people that believe in astrology, for example, but I think
>if you gave these people a horoscope that told them the planets wanted them
>to kill somebody, they would look at you as if you had lost your mind.
Actually, the vast majority of theists would have the same reaction.
On the other hand, there have been millions of soldiers...atheist ones...who
happily killed millions of people because some superiour officer told them that
it was for the 'good of the state'.
You tell me what the difference is.
>Belief systems that make moral presentations will always be suspect; you
>merely have to get people to accept the belief system, and then you modify
>the morality to say what you want, and then you take advantage with those
>that are left.
Uhuh, and every single belief sytem existing makes moral presentations, even
those that do not include the belief in a deity.
>
>Not having the belief system isn't the whole solution; you need people to
>have rational morality, but you're more likely to end up with isolated cases
>rather than genocide/crusades/war.
Tell that to the several millions who have been victim to that precise
genocide/crusade/war waged by those whose power was based on something other
than a theist belief system.
The problem is in the inherent nature of man, not in the particular belief
system s/he picks.
Stop blaming theism. Getting rid of God will NOT cure cancer, stop mass murder
or cause genious to rise wholesale from the worlds' kindergarten classes.
That I have met so many atheists who think that it will is THE most
contradictory, illogical naivete' I have ever encountered, and I really do not
understand it.
Larry Cochran
news:eeWwelY6#GA.356@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> >After all, isn't an atheist just
>
> After all, isn't a Christian just someone who has failed in the search for
> reason, rational thinking, truth, fear management, internal stability, and
> intelligence?
No. Actually, a christian who seeks God, and the truth therein is a sign
to others that they are acknowledging that there is a supreme power, one
which knows more and controls more than they have the total concept of
(but that they wish to know more of).
> Isn't a Christian someone who just got caught up in the
> traditional lies and fears instilled in them by their parents?
The social heritage thing doesn't wash...too many have been born Christian
only to change to Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish beliefs (or even
agnostic/atheistic).
True Christians seek that which they do not know, or do not know enough
about. Any devout Christian will honestly admit, that they do not know
everything about God, or the 6000 year history of mankind, or even all of
the facets of what God passed on to us in the Bible. However, a true
Christian
is one who constantly seeks the truth, in whatever form it may
come...believing
that God will provide more insight into the answers which they seek in his
name.
This is Faith, and is the mystery which the idolatrous, the whoremongers,
the
athiestic, the vain; will never understand or grasp. This single mystery is
the
one which will blind those which do not actively and earnestly seek God's
forgiveness.
> Isn't a christian someone who is so afraid of thinking about reality in
real terms
> that have to rely solely on a manuscript of fairy tale and fable that was
> written in a completely different language almost 2000 years ago.
Now consider, how many other works that are 2000 years old have survived the
time? Excluding stone engravings, how many parchment written documents can
you name which survived for two millenium and for 75% of the work, have
retained
their intended meanings and history? There is no mystery to the Bible, for
were
it not God's will, it would never have even survived the Dark Ages of a
millenium ago.
And even with the desire of men to tamper with the word, with the promises
of God,
the truth is always there should you desire to know it. This is the works
of faith, and
the openness of belief which prompts one to seek the truth where ever it may
be
found.
It is so easy to close one's eyes and say something doesn't exist. As an
osterich head
stuck in the sand, reality doesn't go away...it is always right there, in
obvious sight.
> Even if that doctrine of fantasy were written in 20th century english you
still
> wouldn't understand what it was trying to tell you because YOU ARE TOO
> FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
> WAKE UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN.
This is the parable of the blind leading the blind, and by your use of
words, you clearly
show that you are already in the ditch. However, if you really want to
discuss stupidity,
stupidity is the event in which an average person of average intelligence
takes whatever
twisted information they are provided and portrays it as their own deductive
work.
Stupidity is believing all that you read, all that you see, and all that you
hear; without
checking the facts for the truth within. And laziness is throwing your
hands up in the air
and saying, 'I don't have time to look or read or search, so apparently
since He didn't
make it easy, God definitively does not exist'.
Check the bible, laziness is a deadly sin, and just as you will not work for
the grace of
God here and now, he WILL NOT work for you on the day of judgement.
His place in Heaven is a guarantee...yours is not. What does he have to
lose?
Jessica M. Wolfman
>eric wrote:
>
>>The belief systems are contributory, because they set up the envornment in
>>which people can commit atrocities.
>
>In many cases this is true. My problem is with those who believe that only
>religious belief systems have problems, and that any belief system with an
>atheistic component is therefore better unilaterally. They are not...and indeed
>are every inch as prone to misuse as the most restrictive of religions.
Your problem, before, is that you assume that atheism has a belief system. It
does not. Atheism says *nothing* about anything, except on the idea that god
exists. If a belief system incorperates the idea that there is no god -- atheism
-- and that belief system turns out to be bad, then it is that belief system
that is to be blamed.
>That's what amazes me, the attitude that atheism is somehow pure, and the cure
>for all the evil of the planet.
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks atheism is "pure", because atheism
isn't anything but a lack.
>This is probably the wierdest belief I have ever come across...because if
>atheists are correct, and there IS no God, then how do you figure that people
>are going to change or grow kind and loving if they suddenly realize it?
Atheism doesn't say that atheists are automatically kind and loving.
>The
>atrocities will still happen, the killings and the murders....only the excuses
>would change, and THEN what will you blame?
The people who commit the crimes. But people cannot say "I did this in the name
of atheism!" because atheism doesn't say to do anything. As I said before,
unlike many religious texts, there is nothing in atheism that says "slaughter
the believer".
>>There are lots of people that believe in astrology, for example, but I think
>>if you gave these people a horoscope that told them the planets wanted them
>>to kill somebody, they would look at you as if you had lost your mind.
>
>Actually, the vast majority of theists would have the same reaction.
To us, there is no real difference. You get your instructions from the god you
worship, they get their instructions from the stars they worship.
>On the other hand, there have been millions of soldiers...atheist ones...
All soldiers are atheists? Or just millions? Which ones are these?
>who
>happily killed millions of people because some superiour officer told them that
>it was for the 'good of the state'.
>
>You tell me what the difference is.
Easy: they didn't say it was for atheism's sake. They wanted it for the state.
>>Belief systems that make moral presentations will always be suspect; you
>>merely have to get people to accept the belief system, and then you modify
>>the morality to say what you want, and then you take advantage with those
>>that are left.
>
>Uhuh, and every single belief sytem existing makes moral presentations, even
>those that do not include the belief in a deity.
Please name some atheist morality. Again, atheism is not a belief.
>>Not having the belief system isn't the whole solution; you need people to
>>have rational morality, but you're more likely to end up with isolated cases
>>rather than genocide/crusades/war.
>
>Tell that to the several millions who have been victim to that precise
>genocide/crusade/war waged by those whose power was based on something other
>than a theist belief system.
Such as?
And once again, were their wars waged *because* they were atheists?
No. Because atheism doesn't say "slaughter the believer". It doesn't say "war in
my name". It doesn't say to do anything, or to not do anything.
<sigh> Do you believe in dragons? The big fire breathing type? No? I'll assume
not. Have you *ever* done *anything* simply because there are no dragons? Why
not? Could it be because adragonism doesn't say to do anything? If you
*believed* in dragons, you'd be sacrificing virgins to keep them away, and
offering tribute of gold and jewels to keep them from flaming you, and a bunch
more other things. As an adragonist, you don't have any of these rules, or any
others. Adragonism is simply a lack of belief in dragons.
And atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
>The problem is in the inherent nature of man, not in the particular belief
>system s/he picks.
>
>Stop blaming theism. Getting rid of God will NOT cure cancer, stop mass murder
>or cause genious to rise wholesale from the worlds' kindergarten classes.
Nope. On the other hand, people who hate science because its against god's will
won't be around any more, so scientists could continue their work with one less
distraction. People who kill because they think god wants them to won't have an
excuse. And people who teach children can teach science without the fear of
offending fundies.
And on yet another hand, believing in god hasn't cured cancer, stopped murder of
any kind, or caused children of any age to become ultra-intelligent.
Therefore, it doesn't sound like theism is any better. And theism has had a lot
longer time to implement any changes they were going to make. Since all the bad
stuff is still here, I'd say it failed.
>That I have met so many atheists who think that it will is THE most
>contradictory, illogical naivete' I have ever encountered, and I really do not
>understand it.
I've written two posts now explaining it. Does this help?
>Naiadna
>***Religious debates require four positions: what I believe, what you believe,
>what you think I believe and what I think you believe. Positions 1 & 2 should
>be the same as 3 & 4, but that would take all the fun out of it.***
I think this is the problem. You don't understand what we atheists believe at
all. In fact, you think that we have beliefs related to our atheism. The vast
majority of us don't.
Paul King
nai...@aol.com (Naiadna) wrote:
>
>
>Paul wrote:
>
>> The excuses
>>>of religion are no more heinous than the excuse of people who would gain
>>power
>>>for other reasons, and use genetics or communism or some other 'utopian'
>>ideal
>>>to kill those who would disagree.
>>
>>And no less heinous.
>
>I was about to agree with you...and then it occurred to me that atheistic
>leaders have killed more people in the last century than theists have managed
>in the last millenium..but then, this could simply be a matter of better
>technology. You could be right....no less and no more heinous, just that the
>atheists lately have been better at it.
Don't forget that populations are also higher. And technology has enabled
greater social control. When it comes to killing people for their beliefs
don't forget actions like the Albigensian Crusade.
>
>> And *that* is the point. "By their fruit you will
>>know them" - doesn;t that evil disqualify the religion from it's claims of
>>moral superiority and thus it's *claims* to represent God.
>
>I would say so....unless one investigates the religion in question and finds
>that those who use it to justify such actions are actually breaking it's laws
>to do so....
I don't see that that matters. If the religion is so throughly corrupt
then it obviously has no special connection to God. Regardless of the laws
it claims to follow. There is much more to that supposed relationship than
simply following a set of laws.
>
>After all, can one really blame any belief system for the actions of those who
>break its' rules?
Are you talking about isolated instances or a pattern, involving large
organisations an significant numbers of apparently sincere believers ? In
the former case obviously not.
>
>> Some of those killings are done for the
>>>express purpose of ridding the state of theists...
>>
>>Las time you said this you were reduced to supporting it by claiming that
>>Pol Pot killed Buddhists because they were *almost* theists
>
>You are going to have to give me a quote on that one, bub. I said no such
>thing.
Check out the thread "Why is this" from Aug-Sep '97
in message <340C0284...@tcsourceone.com>
>> You will find Diana retracting her claim that the Daoist Buddhists were
>> killed for theism (as they were not theists).
>
>I didn't do that. Go and look it up for yourself. I said that a; Buddhists were
>atheists but that b;Daoist Buddhists were as near to theistic as Buddhists could
>get, having a form of ancestor worship. THAT is why Pol Pot killed them, for
>that
>"theistic" aspect; the ancestor worship.
Or : <33F9CEAD...@tcsourceone.com>
>> The Khmer Rouge routed out anything they thught was foreign
>> to their way of thinking.
>
>Including any Budhist who had, as an additional belief, anything that
>smacked of theism; like the Daoist Budhists who had a modified form of
>ancestor worship.
Or : <33FC785C...@tcsourceone.com>
>> to affect a *communist* revolution. He eliminated *any* thought
>> contrary
>> to his "vision". *Anyone* who opposed him. Hint: Buddhists (that's
>> two
>> 'd's, BTW) are atheists. They've no belief in god(s). He was
>> eliminating
>> atheists in the name of atheism? Ya wanna try that one again?
>
>Daoist Buddhist are as close to being theist as it is possible for a
>Buddhist to be; there is a mild form of ancestor worship involved, and
>it is the shrines to the ancestors that Pol Pot objected to in this.
Will three quotes do ?
>> - and you were
>>simply guessing as to his motivations even then. You seemed rather upset
>>that I wouldn;t accept a pure guess on your part as an established fact.
>
>You are going to have to provide quotes for this one, I honestly don't
>recognise the conversation.
Done (BTW the replies were to different people - you were consistently
maintaining that view over a period of at least a month).
>
>>yet atheists do not blame
>>>atheism; they put the blame, rightfully, on the men who use the excuse.
>>>
>>>Why they can't see that the same thing aplies to theism I can NOT
>>>understand...
>>
>>Perhaps they do and you fail to understand the arguments you are responding
>>to. In my experience when *Gods* is "blamed" it is becuase the Bible
>>attributes responsibility to God - as in the massacres of Joshua. i.e. it
>>is the *Biblical depiction* of God that is being criticised.
>
>Excuse me, but what else would you expect? When atrocities are commited by
>atheists, the phrase may be 'for the good of the state' or something similar.
>What difference does it make who gets blamed?
I would expect that people who really believed that the Bible was
inaccurate in this matter would say so. It happens, but not often on this
newsgroup. Then of course we have to wonder why a book which slanders God
should be included as scripture.
>
>> In other
>>cases it *is* the religion that is blamed - and that *is* the case in the
>>argument that you are responding to.
>
>
>I am responding to the statement that theism is to blame for 1; religious
>rules, and 2; for the actions of people who disobey their own religious rules
>even while using their religion to justify atrocity.
Actually you were responding to the statement that the Bible was to blame.
>
>This, while insisting that even if an atheist kills for the purpose of ridding
>himself of theists, that atheism isn't a factor in his motivations.
It may well not be - and your "best" example was of atheists being killed,
so I hardly think that you can claim that you have any real evidence for
your position.
>
>You simply cannot have it both ways. If atheistic Communists who
>persecute/alienate/ostracise theists because theism is considered contrary to
>the 'good of the people' or the state cannot be said to have atheism as any
>part of their motivations, or to be doing anything 'in the name of' atheism,
>then the ancient Mayans who killed hundreds of prisoners every day in direct
>sacrafice to their gods weren't doing THAT 'in the name of theism', either.
There are several issues here.
Firstly there is the question of whether all killing done by a government
is done if the name of it's opinions on the existence of a God. Here
Christians try to have it both ways - all killing by atheist governments is
alleged to be done in the name of atheism while they try to deny that even
religiously motivated wars like the crusades werte done in the name of God.
Secondly there is the issue of theists being killed by atheistic
governments. Here we need both the official reasons for the killing and
their actual motives. Christians seem to have great difficulty providing
examples. Those can be examined on the face of the evidence provided - and
would be if you actually had any good examples.
Then we have the issue that atheism in itself - and theism in itself - can
motivate very little. Christianity is not held responsible for the actions
of other religions. Why then should atheism be treated differently ? Yet
the usual Christian arguments demand that it is.
Then we have the issue of religious govenrnments - or organised religions -
killing people in the name of their religion. Here there are many good
examples.
>
>...and I do wish that someone would explain to me, in words of one sylable,
>what the difference is between doing something 'in the name of atheism' and
>doing something to get rid of or fight theism in order to eliminate the
>worship/belief in a deity.
Can we have some quotes where you have provided *genuine* examples showing
that they have been denied and that atheism itself was the motive, not an
objection to the religion on other grounds.
>
>The results and motivation are the same, either way.....and a difference that
>makes no difference IS no difference.
Lets see those examples.
>
>>How many Americans believe that removing communism is a good thing ? Think
>>about that.
>
>Most Americans do believe that, when they think about it. However, considering
>that communism has pretty much removed itself, having fallen under it's own
>economic stupidities, I don't suppose most people think about it much. After
>all, they didn't exactly win the cold war, and where IS the Soviet Union?
>
Would you consider the past campaigns against communism as theists
persecuting atheists because they are atheists ? Like I said, think about
it.
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Mike <duf...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eeWwelY6#GA.356@cpmsnbbsa03...
> >
> > >After all, isn't an atheist just
> > >someone who has failed in their search for God?
> >
> > After all, isn't a Christian just someone who has failed in the search for
> > reason, rational thinking, truth, fear management, internal stability, and
> > intelligence?
>
> No. Actually, a christian who seeks God, and the truth therein is a sign
> to others that they are acknowledging that there is a supreme power, one
> which knows more and controls more than they have the total concept of
> (but that they wish to know more of).
No, and atheist is not someone who has failed in search for god -- no more than
an adult who disbelieves in Santa Claus, is one who has failed in their search
for Santa.
I think Mike's point has been made beautifully.
> > Isn't a Christian someone who just got caught up in the
> > traditional lies and fears instilled in them by their parents?
>
> The social heritage thing doesn't wash...too many have been born Christian
> only to change to Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish beliefs (or even
> agnostic/atheistic).
The social heritage exactly does wash -- *too few* people actually change the
religious affiliation that they were raised into. This is why majority of US is
still xian, majority of India is still hindu or guddhist, majority of Japan is
zen or shinto, majority of Italy is catholics...
Very few people actually break away from the religion they were brought up
with. Face reality, dude.
> True Christians seek that which they do not know,
Such as the existence of god?.. But no, this is a sacred cow -- existence of
god is simply assumed, and so is veracity of the bible. Stop lying to yourself.
> This is Faith, and is the mystery which the idolatrous, the whoremongers,
> the athiestic, the vain; will never understand or grasp. This single
> mystery is the one which will blind those which do not actively and
> earnestly seek God's forgiveness.
You sound like a snake-oil salesman. "This marvelous Dr. Frankenburger's Tonic
will cure cancer, typhoid, baldness, impotence, hemorrhoids, and bad breath --
but you must believe in it first! Really, quite cheap -- come on up, grab a
bottle!"
> > Isn't a christian someone who is so afraid of thinking about reality in
> > real terms that have to rely solely ona manuscript of fairy tale and fable
> > that was written in a completely different language almost 2000 years ago.
>
> Now consider, how many other works that are 2000 years old have survived the
> time?
Plenty. Many survived for far longer than that -- I suggest you look into
Indian or Chinese mythology (for this is all that bible is, as far as I can tell
-- mythology).
It seems, however, that you are ignorant of the bible's history. I suggest you
read uo on Nicean counsil -- that was when bible was *formed*. There was NO
bible before than (about 4th century CE, as I recall) -- there was only Tanakh
(Old testament), and a collection of wildly varying books of xianity.
> It is so easy to close one's eyes and say something doesn't exist. As an
> osterich head stuck in the sand, reality doesn't go away...it is always
> right there, in obvious sight.
Indeed it is. Now your god is a different matter. I see trees, I can derive
existence of gravity or atoms -- but this god of yours, you claim that I must
simply *believe* that it exists. Please excuse me while I laugh hysterically in
the corner at your marvelous mix of gulibility and audacity.
> Stupidity is believing all that you read, all that you see, and all that
> you hear; without checking the facts for the truth within.
This is why any half-way decent student actually verified stuff for themselves.
I, for example, have personally verified a variety of laws of mechanics,
theormodynamics, chemistry, etc. I have also personally verified a variety of
theorems of mathematics and computer science. I have furthermore familiarized
myself with the scientific institution (being a scientist-in-training myself),
and the peer review system. Thus, nothing about science that I read, I accept
*on faith* (without justification). You, on the other hand, accept on faith the
most fundamental elements of your worldview -- existence of god and veracity of
the bible.
> And laziness is throwing your hands up in the air
> and saying, 'I don't have time to look or read or search, so apparently
> since He didn't make it easy, God definitively does not exist'.
Idiot.
Nobody is saying 'god definitely does not exist'. We ARE saying 'It is
reasonable to assume that it does not, until evidence to the contrary becomes
available'. I disbelieve in god for the same reason that I disbelieve in
leprechauns and little green aliens at Roswell -- there is no evidence for them,
and I, as a methodological principle, require evidence before i accept
something.
> Check the bible, laziness is a deadly sin, and just as you will not work for
> the grace of
> God here and now, he WILL NOT work for you on the day of judgement.
> His place in Heaven is a guarantee...yours is not. What does he have to
> lose?
The place in Muslim heaven (if Islam is right rather than xianity), his good
place in reincarnation wheel (in Hindus are right), his place in Elysian fields
(if ancient Greeks were right), his place in heaven (if there is a god who hates
being worshipped, and thus only allows atheists into heaven), etc.
You are proposing a worn-out thingy called 'pascal's Wager'. it has been
completely, utterly discredited. Why don't you actually *learn* a bit before
souting off?
Now, two useful links for your benefit:
1) Why is disbelief in god a rational stance
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
2) Intelligence and religion:
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/intelligence.txt
--
Victor Danilchenko
alt.atheist 696
maddelin...@my-deja.com
holly_alie...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip.>
>
> However, I am dedicated to the earnest pursuit of truth. I decided
that no
> matter what else, I would try to believe whatever was true. I decided
to
> give up my desires for what I wished to be true. My parents, in an
effort to
> convert me back to Christianity gave me a book called, "If there's a
God, Why
> are there atheists?" by RC Sproul. I thumbed through it and it
asserted that
> atheists did not believe in God because God was not necessarily the
kind of
> God we would choose to believe in. I certainly did not want to
believe in
> such a horrible being and it did strike me that perhaps the real
reason I
> rejected God was that I didn't want to believe in hell.
>
> So I did something that atheists don't often do - I prayed. I said,
"God,
> right now I'm not sure if you exist or not. I do know it is true that
I do
> not want to believe in a being who sends people to eternal torment,
but if it
> is true, then I will believe because I decided to believe what is true
above
> all else. So if it is true I will believe it anyway even though it
doesn't
> make me happy." I figured that it wouldn't hurt to be honest.
If God didn't
> exist, then I was being honest with myself and if he does actually
exist,
> then he probably knows everything I said behind his back, not to
mention
> thought. And it was at that moment that I felt a kind of inner peace.
I
> felt as if God said to me, "I don't send people to hell."
>
> Now, as I have been a skeptic all along, I do not believe that
personal
> experience alone dictates truth. I believe that personal religious
> experience or non-religious experience can be a starting point to look
for
> truth, but truth itself has to ultimately rest on something deeper.
Although
> I am still not sure whether or not the Bible is entirely correct, I
became
> convinced from the tentmaker site that there was not enough evidence
to
> believe that it teaches the doctrine of hell, even if you believe it
to be
> the inerrant word of God. Knowing this gave me peace.
Furthermore, I
> actually met Christians there who exhibited characteristics I found
> attractive, like the above mentioned fruits of the spirit. See, when
I first
> had that question popped, "why are you a Christian?" I felt in my
heart of
> hearts that fear of hell or reward of heaven weren't really the right
> answers. Furthermore, it seemed as if the joy I had from worshipping
God
> didn't exactly square with a lot of things people said about God.
After
> reading the tentmaker site and doing some studying, I think I have
finally
> found the right answer as to why one would want to be a Christian -
belief
> that God loves everyone and that they have actually encountered God.
>
> Now this of course will require some evidence as there is a lot of
evil and
> suffering in the world to account for. But do any of you
Christians actually
> feel joy to come into the presence of God and feel like studying and
learning
> more about him? See I find it strange, that as an atheist, I devote
so much
> time to thinking about beings that don't exist. So many times I hear
> Christians come to alt.atheism and state the old Pascal Wager, but see
that
> doesn't cut it. What you should be telling people is that you have
> encountered overwhelming truth and joy that you can't help sharing.
From
> what I see of the New Testament, that is what the early Christians
did. So
> what happened? Where is all the joy? Is there really a reason
to sing?
>
> --
> Holly_Alien_Princess, companion to the 9th and 10th Doctors.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Holly, dahling, you seem to have decicded to call yourself an atheist.
But if you are still searching for the truth in this matter, and if a
part of you still thinks he exists, and hears him talking to you, then I
would say you are NOT an atheist.
An atheist does not believe in god. God does not exist, nor does allah,
budda, or any of those other guys. That would be a basic atheistic take
on the world.
You are more of a doubtful xian. An agnostic, if you will. But you are
not an atheist if you think it's possible that god exists.
I commend your search for the truth, and I hope someday that you find
out for yourself what many of us already know.
Maddeline Hattuer
The age of enlightenment cometh.
Atheists will one day rule the world!!!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
G & G
<snip>
>
>This is the parable of the blind leading the blind, and by your use of
>words, you clearly
>show that you are already in the ditch. However, if you really want to
>discuss stupidity,
>stupidity is the event in which an average person of average intelligence
>takes whatever
>twisted information they are provided and portrays it as their own
deductive
>work.
you
>hear; without
>hands up in the air
>and saying, 'I don't have time to look or read or search, so apparently
>since He didn't
>make it easy, God definitively does not exist'.
for
>the grace of
>God here and now, he WILL NOT work for you on the day of judgement.
>His place in Heaven is a guarantee...yours is not. What does he have to
>lose?
Glenn R. wrote:
And, you came to the conclusion that it was god's work and only god's work
that preserved the bible, the "only" surviving 2,000 year old document, by
not applying one whit of what you have spewed forth above. If you had
followed your own preaching you could not possibly made that statement and
been honest at the same time. There are, for your enlightenment, documents
much older than 2,000 years and they are preserved as well or better than
those which you hold so dearly. You are, by your own statements, showing
that you may be correctly called stupid.