God is a reality, not a belief (Post-Modernism)
The DataRat
"Even if your beliefs are founded, if they're not the
fruit of your own experience, they mislead you.
It's as if you were talking all the time of the pleasure
afforded by orgasm even though you have never
experienced it."
The above is a textbook example of Post-Modernist
deconstruction of truth: Only what is experienced
can be considered "true".
To use the orgasm example:
Never having an orgasm does not make the reality
of orgasm any less real. People experience orgasms
whether you do or not.
Knowledge of truth suffices. We do not have to
experience a truth for it to exist.
The DataRat
Michael McLean
<snip>
We do not have to
>experience a truth for it to exist.
>
>
>The DataRat
Dear DataRat,
We have to experience truth to know it. To know God is to experience Him.
Michael
The DataRat
"We have to experience truth to know it."
That is the the typical self-centered postmodern
world view. Unless I've experienced it, it couldn't
be true.
Assuming you never experienced driving
a car until you were a teenager, we presume
-that up until that time- you denied there was
any truth to the fact that people drove cars.
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "We have to experience truth to know it."
>
>
>
> That is the the typical self-centered postmodern
> world view. Unless I've experienced it, it couldn't
> be true.
No, just not true for you. It is an abstract possibility, but has no
meaning that can be fruitfully applied to your own existence.
Or do you doubt that a real day in the life of a street caop, is more
valuable, that all the classroom training in the world, for a rookie?
>
> Assuming you never experienced driving
> a car until you were a teenager, we presume
> -that up until that time- you denied there was
> any truth to the fact that people drove cars.
Yes, but you couldn't speak from experience on how to drive one. You could
speculate, or repeat what you had been told or read about, but when it
came down to it, in a bad driving situation you would not be half as well
off as someone who had never read about driving, but had already &
actually been driving for years.
"It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually
exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the
world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven
and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is
quite in keeping with the truth.
But you saw something of that place and you became those things. You saw
the Spirit and you became spirit. You saw Christ and you became Christ.
You saw the Father and you shall become Father. So in this place you see
everything and do not see yourself; but in that place you do see yourself
- and what you see you shall become."
(The Apostle Philip, The Gospel of Philip,pub. ~ A.D. 250, from William
Barnstone's The Other Bible, p.91, pub. A.D.1984)
"Become the Resurrection and so behold it:
becoming is the necessary condition for
beholding the reality of anything.
Whether it be light or darkness, until thou become it thou wilt never know
it completely."
(Rumi, "Die Before Death," from Reynold A. Nicholson's Rumi: Poet and
Mystic, p. 132, pub. A.D.1995)
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
--
Gnostic Friends Network: http://www.enemies.com/
The Gnostic Ring: http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
The DataRat
"No, just not true for you."
Classic post-modern sentiment: Mt truth is
my truth, and your truth is your truth.
Folks, the Reformed Rodent is here to
tell you that truth is objective and NOT
subjective, exclusive and NOT inclusive,
and real and NOT surreal.
Truth is a matter of knowledge rather than an
issue of experience.
"It is an abstract possibility, but has no meaning
that can be fruitfully applied to your own existence."
Give the Genevan Rodent a break, Max !
Bro. Rat has never experienced being hit by a train.
But knowledge tells him that it might hurt. He
applies that knowledge and stays out of the way
of moving trains -DESPITE HAVING NO EXPERIENCE
BEING HIT BY THEM !
"Or do you doubt that a real day in the life of a street
caop, is more valuable, that all the classroom training
in the world, for a rookie?"
Experience ~usually- deepens knowledge. But
not always. The Police Rodent has seen officers
get lazy and sloppy with experience.
In any case, the issue never was whether experience
adds value to knowledge. The discussion was whether
something could be true without the person experiencing
it. Read the early posts in this thread.
"Yes, but you couldn't speak from experience on how
to drive one."
The analogy wasn't addressing the "how" of driving.
It addressed the "truth" of driving. Truth, not skill, was
the thread topic.
"It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the
things that actually exist unless he becomes like them."
Knock off the gnostic mumbo jumbo, Max. The
Calvinist Rodent doesn't have to lay in a sewer to
know it stinks ! Nor does he have to commit murder
to know it's wrong. Or, put his tiny little furry paw into
a meat grinder to know it hurts.
"The Apostle Philip, The Gospel of Philip"
Now we see why the supposed "Gospel of Phillip'
never made it into the canon of Scripture.
Still Your Pal,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Do you have any similar stories to share, and
do you have any tips on how to confront
Post-Modernism."
All the Reformed Rodent's stuff is here in
the newsgroups. Between the job, and his
Usenet apologetics ministry, and getting
married soon, all his time is consumed.
Besides, Bro. Rat has only been a Christian
for 20-months ( and the first year of that he
only studied and prayed in preparation for
doing what he's doing now ).
Yeah, the Post-Modernists can be tripped up
on their hypocrisy:
"Tolerance" is their supreme virtue, but they're
intolerant of anyone they consider not tolerant.
They don't believe in truth, and they'll insist that
it's true that there is no truth.
Then there are the logical fallacies. We see those
all the time here in the newsgroups. The most
common one goes like this:
There are so many different -often mutually exclusive-
religious beliefs that all of them must be wrong.
A variation is that all of them must be right.
Or, the compromise position: They're all right, but
only to the person holding that belief.
The possibility that one position may be right, and
other beliefs wrong, is incomprehensible to them.
Discernment has been educated out of 'em. All
which remains is feel-good fuzzy thinking and the
philosophy of I'm-Ok-You're-Ok, Can't-We-All-Just-
Get-Along-?.
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe
in anything." And when someone believes in nothing,
they'll believe anything !
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "No, just not true for you."
>
>
> Classic post-modern sentiment: Mt truth is
> my truth, and your truth is your truth.
>
> Folks, the Reformed Rodent is here to
> tell you that truth is objective and NOT
> subjective, exclusive and NOT inclusive,
> and real and NOT surreal.
>
> Truth is a matter of knowledge rather than an
> issue of experience.
>
How do you get knowledge, if not by experience?
If you want to learn to speak French, which is better, looking at a map of
France or actually going there?
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<snip>
> "It is an abstract possibility, but has no meaning
> that can be fruitfully applied to your own existence."
>
>
> Give the Genevan Rodent a break, Max !
> Bro. Rat has never experienced being hit by a train.
> But knowledge tells him that it might hurt. He
> applies that knowledge and stays out of the way
> of moving trains -DESPITE HAVING NO EXPERIENCE
> BEING HIT BY THEM !
Have you ever seen a train? Have you ever been hit, or hurt?
THEN YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE!
>
>
>
>
> "Or do you doubt that a real day in the life of a street
> caop, is more valuable, that all the classroom training
> in the world, for a rookie?"
>
>
> Experience ~usually- deepens knowledge. But
> not always. The Police Rodent has seen officers
> get lazy and sloppy with experience.
>
> In any case, the issue never was whether experience
> adds value to knowledge. The discussion was whether
> something could be true without the person experiencing
> it. Read the early posts in this thread.
You completely misunderstand the postmodernist position on truth and reply
shows it.
The postmodernist position is just common sense. But you are far from
alone in not being able to wrap your brain around it. Many people are
confused by the idea that we all experience things subjectively.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Yes, but you couldn't speak from experience on how
> to drive one."
>
>
> The analogy wasn't addressing the "how" of driving.
> It addressed the "truth" of driving. Truth, not skill, was
> the thread topic.
>
Once again, you have misunderstand the postmodernist position.
Nobody questions the "truth" of driving. But I would still be far more
likely to put my life in the hands of an expert driver, than someone who
has never driven.
>
>
>
>
> "It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the
> things that actually exist unless he becomes like them."
>
>
> Knock off the gnostic mumbo jumbo, Max.
Ah, ah, ah, you snipped the explanation. You don't understand the opposite
point of view because you don't want to. Invincible ignorance?
The
> Calvinist Rodent doesn't have to lay in a sewer to
> know it stinks !
Would you know what "stinks" means if you couldn't smell?
<snip>
>
> Still Your Pal,
Well Jeez, I wasn't worried about that! Should I be?
> The DataRat
Elfish Chimera
The DataRat wrote in message ...
>
>
>"Do you have any similar stories to share, and
> do you have any tips on how to confront
> Post-Modernism."
<snip>
>
>Then there are the logical fallacies. We see those
>all the time here in the newsgroups. The most
>common one goes like this:
>
>There are so many different -often mutually exclusive-
>religious beliefs that all of them must be wrong.
<snip>
>
>The possibility that one position may be right, and
>other beliefs wrong, is incomprehensible to them.
Well then I can prove I'm not a "post modernist" (and truth be told, its
Christian theology that strikes me as post modern most of the time), for I
understand completely that most of the worlds religions being false does not
mean that any particular one is false.
Simple logic.
But it does mean that they all CAN be false without any logical fallacy
ensuing, therefore he or she who DOES claim to have the one true religion
bears a heavy burden of proof.
One I can only note that when asked tough questions the DR makes himself
scarce indeed.
So I'd be real careful before accepting any answers from good ole DR.
You might want to ask him about his "correct hermeneutic" -- the one that
allows him to turn poetry into statements of epistemological truth.
That would indeed be a neat trick, but I can't get him to explain it.
Ciao!!
Mike, aka Elfish Chimera, in sunny San Diego.
Email antispammed, send personal replies to mwfisher [at] cts [dot] com
"US psychologist James H. Leuba [in] his landmark survey of 1914 ... found
that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or
doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among
the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in
somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had
increased to 67 and 85, respectively ... [To get an up-to-date view ] Our
chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the
transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality
among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among
NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were
agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest
percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in
immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in
God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher
(7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
From Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, "Leading scientists still reject
God" (Correspondence), Nature 394:313 (1998 Jul 23)
Frank A.S.
>
>on their hypocrisy:
>
>"Tolerance" is their supreme virtue, but they're
>intolerant of anyone they consider not tolerant.
>They don't believe in truth, and they'll insist that
>it's true that there is no truth.
>
>other beliefs wrong, is incomprehensible to them.
There is an unfortunate tendency for some Christians to see only black and white. That is why
Judaism first persecuted Christians and later Christians persecuted Jews. The fact of the matter is,
that ALL religions are basically prescriptions for spiritual healing, but some are better and/or
more effective than others. Just because some believe in a less effective method or prescription
should be no reason for condemnation or hate, but an opportunity to witness to the Glory of our
saviour Jesus Christ.
For one like myself who loves Christ above all, there is no reason to stop loving Buddha for his
compassion and wisdom, nor Lao Dzu for his awe of God, the Dau, nor of course the Old Testament
prophets for their love of YHWH and the law of Moses.
>
>"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe
>in anything." And when someone believes in nothing,
>they'll believe anything !
>
Well said!!!
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
If you live in LOVE, God dwells in you (1 John 4:16)
If you LOVE others, you know God because God is LOVE (1 John 4:7-8)
We know we are saved if we LOVE others (1 John 3:14)
If you do not LOVE others, you do not LOVE God (1 John 4:20)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
The DataRat
"How do you get knowledge, if not by
experience?"
One last time, Max:
The Genevan Rodent has never experienced
being hit by a train. But he nevertheless has
knowledge that it might hurt.
Truth -the original discussion point- is independent
of experience. Things you never experienced
can be true.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Have you ever seen a train? Have you ever been hit,
or hurt? THEN YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY
EXPERIENCE!"
That's the worst logic the Calvinist Rodent has
ever read in the newsgroup, Max.
By THAT reasoning:
1.) DataRat has experienced being hit,
2.) DataRat has experienced being hurt,
3.) DataRat has seen cotton balls,
4.) Ergo, DataRat knows that being hit by
a cotton ball would hurt.
Sheesh !
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
I have heard of people being killed by trains. But I have never heard of
people being killed by cottonballs. Have you?
Either you didn't understand the analogy or you are pretending not to.
Sheesh!
The DataRat
"ALL religions are basically prescriptions for
spiritual healing, but some are better and/or
more effective than others. Just because some
believe in a less effective method or prescription
should be no reason for condemnation or hate..."
Sorry, Frank, but it's NOT a matter of degree.
Christianity isn't better than the pagan religions.
Christianity is the one, true religion. All the others
are false religions.
Christ is not one of the saviors ( or guru, or
teachers or whatever ), just maybe better. Nor
is Christ at the top of a hierarchy of saviors/
guru/teachers. The claims of Christ -as exposited
by Scripture- are exclusive. Either Jesus is very
God, or He was a fool or a liar.
Condemnation of false religions isn't only ok,
it's prescribed by Scripture. Also, we are to love
the truth and hate falsehood.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"...Lao Dzu for his awe of God, the Dau..."
Frank, Lao Tse was an atheist. He didn't
believe in a personal God. He believed in
an impersonal force called "Tao". ( We
won't quibble over spellings of Chinese words,
and THAT is ~not~ the Reformed Rodent's
point. Tao is pronounced "dow", and Dau is
close enough. )
Now you can call an impersonal, unthinking
force "God" if you wish. Bro. Rat thinks most
of us would categorize it a "force of nature"
( albeit Lao represented it as the supreme
and universal force of nature ). But, the bottom
line is that this so-called "god" of Lao Tse is
NOT anything comparable to the thinking,
personal God of the Bible. Comparing the two
is apples-and-oranges.
The DataRat
Kevin T Rice
On 11 Oct 1998, Rev. Illuminatus Maximus wrote:
> In article <XZXT1.1392$EK2.1...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>, "The DataRat"
> <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Have you ever seen a train? Have you ever been hit,
> > or hurt? THEN YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY
> > EXPERIENCE!"
> >
> >
> > That's the worst logic the Calvinist Rodent has
> > ever read in the newsgroup, Max.
> >
> > By THAT reasoning:
> >
> > 1.) DataRat has experienced being hit,
> >
> > 2.) DataRat has experienced being hurt,
> >
> > 3.) DataRat has seen cotton balls,
> >
> > 4.) Ergo, DataRat knows that being hit by
> > a cotton ball would hurt.
>
>
> I have heard of people being killed by trains. But I have never heard of
> people being killed by cottonballs. Have you?
>
> Either you didn't understand the analogy or you are pretending not to.
You just changed your main point. NOw you can know things by
TESTIMONY OF OTHERS and not just BY EXPERIENCE.
You just lost the argument, Rev. Gnosticus Hereticus Wackosicus
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<kr...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> You just changed your main point. NOw you can know things by
> TESTIMONY OF OTHERS and not just BY EXPERIENCE.
Well, right you are, I did, though I didn't realize at the time as I
couldn't really figure out what DR's main point was. But now that you have
framed it for me, I understand.
So, his point was that the testimony of others is more trustworthy than
personal experience, while mine was that personal experience is more
trustworthy than the testimony of others.
So the analogy still holds. I see a deer being hit by a car, for example,
and this is more trustworthy than, for example, the oral testimony of a
Native American medecine man who claimed that he saw a deer get hit by a
car, rise from the dead and begin to speak with a human voice.
> You just lost the argument, Rev. Gnosticus Hereticus Wackosicus
If you say so. But I have won a new understanding of how you people think,
so it was worth it.
Frank A.S.
>
>"ALL religions are basically prescriptions for
>spiritual healing, but some are better and/or
>more effective than others. Just because some
>believe in a less effective method or prescription
>should be no reason for condemnation or hate..."
>
>Sorry, Frank, but it's NOT a matter of degree.
>Christianity isn't better than the pagan religions.
>Christianity is the one, true religion.
I know this to be true.
All the others are false religions.
I know this to be untrue. Judaism is NOT a false religion, but without Christ an incomplete
religion. The compassion of the Buddha is not wrong because it is not Christian. In fact I believe,
that ALL humanity from the beginning of mankind were saved by what Jesus stood for, namely caring
love for others. Your way, all humanity up to Christ are frying in hell.
>
>Christ is not one of the saviors ( or guru, or
>teachers or whatever ), just maybe better. Nor
>is Christ at the top of a hierarchy of saviors/
>guru/teachers. The claims of Christ -as exposited
>by Scripture- are exclusive. Either Jesus is very
>God, or He was a fool or a liar.
>
I have no argument against that, for that is what I believe too. But just because of that, I
have no reason to quit reading and contemplating Old Testament prophets, or other wise men, though
they knew nothing of Christ.
>Condemnation of false religions isn't only OK,
>it's prescribed by Scripture. Also, we are to love
>the truth and hate falsehood.
>
"Condemnation" is not furthering the kingdom, nor is you advocating Muslim shariah law or OT
laws heavily weighted in favour of the death penalty by stoning, but the persuasive method of Paul
in Greece, i.e. preaching "as smart as a serpent, but as harmless as a dove". Most people have other
religions because they are ignorant of Christianity, not because they need condemnation for the
religion they got. That includes atheists. They are the only ones who DO need condemnation, for they
know the truth but reject. They are therefore agents of Satan.
>
You still haven't got my name against my quote, nor the proper number of >> marking my lines.
Are you not going to fix it?
Frank A.S.
>
>"...Lao Dzu for his awe of God, the Dau..."
>
>force "God" if you wish. Bro. Rat thinks most
>of us would categorize it a "force of nature"
>( albeit Lao represented it as the supreme
>and universal force of nature ). But, the bottom
>line is that this so-called "god" of Lao Tse is
>NOT anything comparable to the thinking,
>personal God of the Bible. Comparing the two
>is apples-and-oranges.
>
>
that with the meaning of God. The Tao is as all-inclusive as God and neither can be limited by human
understanding. Anyway, my sig is designed to engage Taoists in FRIENDLY non-partisan discussions
about the parallels of Taoism and Christianity. The hope is, that the Taoist will learn to
understand Christianity, the holy Spirit convicting him eventually. To whom is your outreach?
The DataRat
"Your way, all humanity up to Christ are frying in hell."
NOT the Reformed Rodent's position at all, Frank.
Those of us after Christ are saved by looking back at
His sacrificial atonement. All those before Christ are
saved by looking forward to it. The Elect existed
in all segments of history.
The DataRat
Frank A.S.
The DataRat wrote in message ...
>
>
>
You did NOT write this, I did! You keep attributing other people's quotes to yourself, which is
getting to be annoying. Please list the name of those quoted.
>
>NOT the Reformed Rodent's position at all, Frank.
>Those of us after Christ are saved by looking back at
>His sacrificial atonement. All those before Christ are
>saved by looking forward to it. The Elect existed
>in all segments of history.
>
This is correct in theory and hindsight, but only as it applies to the OT and those who hoped
for the Messiah, (The Jews still hoping). That means, the rest of the world is still "frying in
hell" according to your literalist view. What I was trying to say is, that Christ is much larger
than his physical appearance, for the principle of the saving grace of love over law existed since
the beginning of time and was known to the heart of man.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Everyone who LOVES is saved (1 John 4:7-8)
LOVE is the only true "religion" according to Jesus.
Jesus doesn't care about your religious affiliation, only your HEART.
No one can come to God except through LOVE (the Spirit of Jesus).
Jesus preached LOVE, not a new religion.
LOVE is what Christ and Christianity is all about!
Christianity is the Way of LOVE for others and God.
Jesus shows us the Way to heaven -----> LOVE.
LOVE is the only thing that matters (Gal 5:6).
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
The DataRat
"To whom is your outreach?"
The Reformed Rodent has a general Usenet
apologetics ministry. He has been at it for
less than a year, and therefore hasn't developed
any more specific target group. ( He may never
focus more specifically. ) Bro. Rat's goal is to
defend the faith, proclaim the Gospel, and explain
the Scriptures, in the newsgroups. He views it as
pre-evangelism.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"You did NOT write this, I did! You keep attributing
other people's quotes to yourself, which is getting
to be annoying."
A SIMPLE GUIDE TO THE DATARAT'S POSTS
Listen, Frank, it's very easy: Who the Reformed Rodent
quotes is in quotation marks. Bro. Rat's replies are NOT
in quotation marks. What's so difficult about that concept ?
Now let's practice:
Examine ~this~ very DataRat post. What is quotes ?
Right, the stuff at the top ! That's YOU, Frank, it's you
being quoted at the top of this article.
Now, what part isn't enclosed in quotation marks ?
Correct, again ! Everything under the quote. That's
the Genevan Rodent's reply to you, Frank !
How do you know who is being quoted ? Well, if it's
~you~, you should remember that YOU wrote it. If it's
somebody else Bro. Rat is replying to, just look higher
in the thread hierarchy to see.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"...only as it applies to the OT and those who hoped
for the Messiah, (The Jews still hoping)."
The Jews who are still hoping are not OT Jews,
so what saved people in OT times doesn't apply
to them. Jews today are saved by the same looking
back to Christ's atonement as anyone living today.
DR
Frank A.S.
fix the settings in your News-reader?
I am glad you do plan to have a ministry, for many are called but few are chosen (Matt. 20:16).
I chose the most difficult, the atheists, because I used to be one, and then Christ found me -the
lost sheep. For He loves those as I more than 99 of those who never stray from the fold (Matt.
18:13) and therefore I seek my lost brothers now in gratitude to Him who saved me.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
If you live in LOVE, God dwells in you (1 John 4:16)
Djehuti Sundaka
person considers 'God' NOT to be an objective existence but rather a
subjective existence (like a moral goal to be obtained), is such a
person an atheist since they don't believe in an objective god?
The DataRat wrote:
> "...Lao Dzu for his awe of God, the Dau..."
>
> Frank, Lao Tse was an atheist. He didn't
> believe in a personal God. He believed in
> an impersonal force called "Tao". ( We
> won't quibble over spellings of Chinese words,
> and THAT is ~not~ the Reformed Rodent's
> point. Tao is pronounced "dow", and Dau is
> close enough. )
>
> Now you can call an impersonal, unthinking
> force "God" if you wish. Bro. Rat thinks most
> of us would categorize it a "force of nature"
> ( albeit Lao represented it as the supreme
> and universal force of nature ). But, the bottom
> line is that this so-called "god" of Lao Tse is
> NOT anything comparable to the thinking,
> personal God of the Bible. Comparing the two
> is apples-and-oranges.
Imagine that. You and I are yet totally agreed on yet another subject.
The Tao is not 'God' although some prefer to refer to it in that way.
The Tao is perceived more as an understanding of the supreme force that
is nature and therefore called 'The Way'.
>
>
> The DataRat
The DataRat
"Will you PLEASE fix the settings in your
News-reader?"
Not "fix", Frank. The Genevan Rodent's settings
are not ~broke~. He CHANGED the settings.
There was a reason why, too:
Bro. Rat feels that extensive quotes and a bunch
of ">" detract from the readability of an article.
He believes that his posts have so much currency
in these newsgroups partly because of that
readability.
As for naming the person being quoted: The
Calvinist Rodent is convinced that ideas are more
important than persons. When he frames a reply,
he is responding more to concepts presented
than the individual who presented them. Surely,
Frank, you do not have so much trouble following
a thread that you can't figure out who Bro. Rat is
replying to ?
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"I chose the most difficult, the atheists, because I used
to be one, and then Christ found me -the lost sheep."
Yes. The Lord finds us, we ~don't~ find Him !
Remember the "I Found It !" campaign from about
25 years ago ? It was pretty superficial (in more ways
than one). Largely consisted of bumper stickers
saying "I Found It !". It annoyed the crap out of an
atheist DataRat at the time. It ~still~ annoys him ( for
a different reason ...because it is bad theology ! ).
"...therefore I seek my lost brothers now in gratitude to
Him who saved me."
That is why the Reformed Rodent is here, too, Frank.
Your Friend,
DataRat
The DataRat
"I'm just curious about your personal perspective
on something...if a person considers 'God' NOT to
be an objective existence but rather a subjective
existence (like a moral goal to be obtained), is such
a person an atheist since they don't believe in an
objective god?"
Not certain what distinction you are trying to make,
Djehuti. Could you elaborate ?
Do you mean "God as a Principle" vs. a Personal
God ( i.e., "He" ) ?
Or, do you mean by "a moral goal", god as an ideal ?
The Reformed Rodent thinks we can say at least this:
Anyone who doesn't believe in the True God is
ultimately an atheist. Strictly speaking, of course, an
"atheist" is a person who denies any god exists. That's
a rather academic definition, though. In practical terms,
if you believe in a wrong god ( i.e., a false god ) you might
as well be atheist.
People who believe in god as a force of nature have a
pretty thin claim to being theists. Atheist scientists
believe in forces of nature ! The concept of "God"
doesn't have much meaning outside of personality.
An impersonal god seems to the Calvinist Rodent to
be little more than a repackaging of materialism.
"Imagine that. You and I are yet totally agreed on
yet another subject."
Tell Bro. Rat it's not true ! He will immediately re-examine
his beliefs !
"The Tao is not 'God' although some prefer to refer to
it in that way."
Your buddy, The DataRat, for 30 years considered
himself ~both~ an atheist and a Taoist.
"The Tao is perceived more as an understanding of
the supreme force that is nature and therefore called
'The Way'."
Agreed.
Indeed, the Chinese word "tao" means "way". The
Genevan Rodent used to collect translations of the
Tao Te Ching, and many of them defined Tao as
"the way of nature".
DataRat
The DataRat
Pondering your post, Frank, the Calvinist Rodent
thinks that one place we diverge is in our approach
to evangelism. You go directly to the Gospel.
Bro. Rat has been very impressed with 1 Corinthians
1:18 ( "The word of the cross is to those who are
perishing foolishness..." NASB ).
THAT certainly was true for a formerly atheist
DataRat !
His strategy is based on the presumption that one
doesn't feel the need to be saved if one isn't
convinced one is lost. So, the Genevan Rodent
usually starts with the Law. Only once a person
feels condemned can they appreciate Grace.
Another aspect of Bro. Rat's ministry is that it's
apologetics oriented. It's more about defending
the faith, and giving an answer about why we believe,
than traditional evangelism.
The Reformed Rodent doesn't view his primary
audience as the person he's replying to. A lot of
times the other person in the debate has a really
hardened heart, and does not have ears to hear
what Scripture is saying. Yet, Bro. Rat knows that
many other people are following the threads. Some
of those are seeking the truth.
Some of us harvest the crop. Some water and tend
the plants as they grow. Others put seeds into the
ground. Still others plow the fields before planting.
The Calvinist Rodent thinks of himself as the guy who
goes through the field before plowing, and removes
the stones and rocks.
Besides doing standard apologetics, Bro. Rat also
has a secondary mission. It is his belief that
"Christianity" has gotten typecast into an effeminate,
nicey-nicey, sissyish mold. The Genevan Rodent
thinks of Jesus driving the merchants out of the temple.
Jesus is no wimp ! And real Christianity is dynamic,
energetic, and powerful ! Bro. Rat tries to put ~that~
across in his ministry.
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
Libertarius
eternal and eternally unchanging "entity", like the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God", but an eternal and eternally changing,
forming and transforming PROCESS: the Eternal Cosmic Course ("Way").
That PROCESS alone EXISTS. If there were any "God" or "Gods",
he/she/it/they would have to be a PRODUCT of that eternal Process and
could not be unchanging becuse EVERYTHING in Nature is but an
ephemeral, changing occurrence.
Heraclitus of Ephesus correctly identified this Cosmic Course (HO
KOSMOS) with "God" (HO THEOS).
"God is day, night, winter, summer, war, peace, enough, too little,
but disguised in each and known in each by a separate falvor."
"To live is to die, to be awake is to sleep, to be young is
to be old, for one flows into the other, and the process is
capable of being reversed."
"Everything flows; nothing remains."
"Change alone is unchanging."
"The universal Cosmic Ordering no one of gods nor man
has made: it has forever been, is now, and forever will be:
an Everliving Fire rhythmically flaring up and dying out in
fixed measures."
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
watcher2
Does the true word of God reside ONLY in the original texts of the Bible ?
What version ?
If so, then by your definition am I guilty of apopasty, and post modernist
heretic ?
I believe that the time has come for Christians, Jews Moslems and followers
of all the religions to put aside their differences and concentrate of the
"common ground" of their faiths.
Jews follow the Talmud and the Torah, Moslems follow the Koran and
Christians follow various versions of the Bible and all claim exclusive
rights to salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven, and all have the same basic
texts and claim the same lineage from Adam through to Noah and Abraham.
Why is it that we all brand each other unbelievers and somehow find
justifications in the Word to avoid the prohibitions against violence and
avoid following the commandment to Love one another ?
Am I going against the Word of God or the teachings of Jesus in this belief
?
What is so wrong in taking the time to read the texts of another religion
and placing them in the context of God's Word as written in ALL the bibles?
Are the Jewish Talmud and Torah, the Islamic Koran corruptions of Gods Word
and anathema to Christians ?
I'm not seeking dissention here, I really want to know.. a lot depends on
the answer !
Frank A.S.
>I'm just curious about your personal perspective on something...if a
>person considers 'God' NOT to be an objective existence but rather a
>subjective existence (like a moral goal to be obtained), is such a
>person an atheist since they don't believe in an objective god?
>
That's simple. "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). That means idea / ideal without form
or substance, eternally existent, unchanging, omniscent, all-inclusive and having all the attributes
of God. Therefore: "The Word WAS God" (John 1:1). "And the Word was made flesh" (John 1:13). Here we
have the
idea / ideal become physical reality, the ideal appearing as Jesus Christ.
Now, does the appearance of Christ make the Word become invalid or disappear? Using your words:
Does the subjective existence of an ideal cease to exist, just because an objective physical
manifestation of it has become apparent?
In MHO it is therefore obvious that BOTH the Word as well as its appearance in the flesh Jesus
Christ, are in fact God.
>Imagine that. You and I are yet totally agreed on yet another subject.
>The Tao is not 'God' although some prefer to refer to it in that way.
>The Tao is perceived more as an understanding of the supreme force that
>is nature and therefore called 'The Way'.
>
You have to make a decision: Either the Tao is all inclusive, meaning it also possesses all
humanity that we attribute to our Judeo-Christian God, or you think that the Tao does NOT include
all that is, therefore there must be another spiritual dimension outside the Tao. To me the latter
is absurd. What about you?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
LOVE is the Way to eternal Life according to Jesus (Luke 10:25-28)
LOVE is the Way to heaven. Love is the Spirit of Christ.
LOVE is the gospel. For God so LOVED the world… (John 3:16)
LOVE is the Law of the Universe.
LOVE is the Light of the world. Jesus is LOVE.
LOVE is the Spirit of God, the Divine Holy Spirit of Christ.
LOVE, being Christ, is our Salvation.
Even God's wrath is a sign of His LOVE (Heb 12:5)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
Frank A.S.
>
>As for naming the person being quoted: The
>Calvinist Rodent
A born-again Calvinist? You are a rare specimen indeed. Tell us more how you square
predestination and selective atonement with: "God our saviour, who will have ALL men to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3)? Also: "Anyone calling on the name of Jesus
Christ will be saved"?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
It was LOVE that held Jesus to the cross, not nails.
All you need is LOVE (God is Love).
If you have LOVE, you are born again (1 John 4:7)
No LOVE, No God Know LOVE, Know God
No LOVE, No heaven Know LOVE, Know heaven
Fear of the Lord is only the BEGINNING of wisdom.
In the perfection of wisdom, God's perfect LOVE casts out fear (1John 4:18)
There is no fear in LOVE.
Nothing can separate us from the LOVE of Jesus (Rom 8:39)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
-
Frank A.S.
>
>
I hope you don't look at this completely from the Calvinistic viewpoint, -I mean in a fatalistic
sense, where we are to be obedient to the end, at which time we will know whether we are one of the
chosen, or whether the Lord passed us by.
>>"...therefore I seek my lost brothers now in gratitude to
>> Him who saved me."
>
>That is why the Reformed Rodent is here, too, Frank.
>
I praise the Lord daily for the presence on the net of my brothers in Christ and I pray we will
see more. (Matt. 9:36)
Frank A.S.
>usually starts with the Law. Only once a person
>feels condemned can they appreciate Grace.
>
Actually I have been doing the same. How few and rare the occasion I actually can get into the
"curse of the law" and the saving grace and love that IS the Lord our Savour Jesus Christ (except in
my sig.). I thought originally that that topic would predominate in religious NGs for it is THE ONE
aspect missing from ALL other religions. That is WHY I call other religions "incomplete", (not evil
or of the devil, like my more literalist brothers will have it). But as it turned out, I seldom get
a chance to testify of the magnificence and glory of SAVING GRACE.
>Another aspect of Bro. Rat's ministry is that it's
>apologetics oriented. It's more about defending
>the faith, and giving an answer about why we believe,
>than traditional evangelism.
>
I get more and more the impression, that what we defend the faith against is chronic depression
and the cynical negativity symptomatic of it. Don't you feel the bleakness and hoplessness of hell
coming through when reading confirmed atheist polemics? They could just sum up everything they have
to say and their view of existence as a whole in just 3 words: All is shit. I have never met an
atheist who extolls any inspiring philosophy of life or praises persons living up to great moral
ideals. Have you? God, Christ, even one as Mother Teresa is just "more shit".
>The Reformed Rodent doesn't view his primary
>audience as the person he's replying to.
Neither do I. But lately I have been trying to put the brakes on the most virulent of the
atheist, by calling them Satan's agents. We will see whether they will either leave or treat theists
with a little more respect in their religious NGs.
In the beginning I engaged atheists in their own NGs, but after a few years of being the focus
of their abuse in news:alt.atheism, I need a break, and post presently exclusively to religious NGs.
>
>Some of us harvest the crop. Some water and tend
>the plants as they grow. Others put seeds into the
>ground. Still others plow the fields before planting.
>The Calvinist Rodent thinks of himself as the guy who
>goes through the field before plowing, and removes
>the stones and rocks.
>
God bless you efforts.
>Besides doing standard apologetics, Bro. Rat also
>has a secondary mission. It is his belief that
>"Christianity" has gotten typecast into an effeminate,
>nicey-nicey, sissyish mold. The Genevan Rodent
>thinks of Jesus driving the merchants out of the temple.
>Jesus is no wimp ! And real Christianity is dynamic,
>energetic, and powerful ! Bro. Rat tries to put ~that~
>across in his ministry.
>
Good point. Did you EVER hear ANY minister preach on: "The Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,
and the violent take it by force" (Matt. 11:12) and how one is to put THAT into action? I sure would
like to know if one could translate the original as: "And the assertive take it by force".
No. Our Jesus was no 'goody goody two shoes'!
Frank A.S.
>
>Genevan Rodent used to collect translations of the
>Tao Te Ching, and many of them defined Tao as
>"the way of nature".
>
all-inclusive and NOT different from the Judeo-Christian God who is the Alpha and the Omega,
excludes nothing and is static only insofar as the fact of continual change is static. If the Tao is
limited in ANY way, then there must exist another Tao which covers what has been excluded in the
first. That would be nonsense in MHO.
Kevin T Rice
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, The DataRat wrote:
>
>
> Pondering your post, Frank, the Calvinist Rodent
> thinks that one place we diverge is in our approach
> to evangelism. You go directly to the Gospel.
> Bro. Rat has been very impressed with 1 Corinthians
> 1:18 ( "The word of the cross is to those who are
> perishing foolishness..." NASB ).
>
> THAT certainly was true for a formerly atheist
> DataRat !
>
> His strategy is based on the presumption that one
> doesn't feel the need to be saved if one isn't
> convinced one is lost. So, the Genevan Rodent
> usually starts with the Law. Only once a person
> feels condemned can they appreciate Grace.
>
> Another aspect of Bro. Rat's ministry is that it's
> apologetics oriented. It's more about defending
> the faith, and giving an answer about why we believe,
> than traditional evangelism.
>
> The Reformed Rodent doesn't view his primary
> audience as the person he's replying to. A lot of
> times the other person in the debate has a really
> hardened heart, and does not have ears to hear
> what Scripture is saying. Yet, Bro. Rat knows that
> many other people are following the threads. Some
> of those are seeking the truth.
This is very true, and I found that out last week when someone who
does not know the Bible very well e-mailed me and thanked me profusely for
defending the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity against some heretics
on these NGs who've been trying to discredit it.
It made me pause in wonder to realize how God could be using me to
help support the faith of Jesus' "little ones". I pointed him to some
good apologetics sites. But first, I asked him if he was Catholic,
because I wanted to know if it would be okay to send him to MY favorite
sites. He is not, so I did not.
You would have been proud of me, Bro. Rat. I did not use the
opportunity to proselytize to a defenseless Protestant who wouldn't know
how to respond to my pro-Catholic arguments (I think that would have been
unethical, even though I DO believe in my Church).
Your Friend,
Kevin
>
> Some of us harvest the crop. Some water and tend
> the plants as they grow. Others put seeds into the
> ground. Still others plow the fields before planting.
> The Calvinist Rodent thinks of himself as the guy who
> goes through the field before plowing, and removes
> the stones and rocks.
>
> Besides doing standard apologetics, Bro. Rat also
> has a secondary mission. It is his belief that
> "Christianity" has gotten typecast into an effeminate,
> nicey-nicey, sissyish mold. The Genevan Rodent
> thinks of Jesus driving the merchants out of the temple.
> Jesus is no wimp ! And real Christianity is dynamic,
> energetic, and powerful ! Bro. Rat tries to put ~that~
> across in his ministry.
>
>
> Your Buddy,
>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kevin T Rice
From a Christian perspective, the Torah is God's revelation, not a
corruption. But that was only the beginning of God's revelation. God
continued to reveal Himself to His specially chosen Covenant people
through representatives called Prophets, and through the kings He
installed over Israel. Through THEM, God told us that His final
revelation would be when He came to earth in Person as a Man to be their
Lord and King "Moshiach" (anointed).
Finally, two thousand years ago, He did exactly that. He
fulfilled the Torah, accomplished our salvation, and founded a Church
through which He gave the world His final revelations, which we have in
the form of the New Testament (and, I believe, the Sacred Tradition of the
Catholic Church).
The Bible is unique. It is NOT equal to other books like the
Koran. It is superior. It is God's true revelation. And the Talmud
certainly does not claim to be scripture or God's Word, but an approved
Jewish COMMENTARY on the Hebrew Scriptures.
To see all the world's scriptures as God's Word is to saythat, in
effect, God did not uniquely reveal Himself in *ANY* of them. By
affirming all of them, you actually DENY all of them. Better to pick just
one than say, "They're all true, even when they call each other false."
Djehuti Sundaka
The DataRat wrote:
> "I'm just curious about your personal perspective
> on something...if a person considers 'God' NOT to
> be an objective existence but rather a subjective
> existence (like a moral goal to be obtained), is such
> a person an atheist since they don't believe in an
> objective god?"
>
> Not certain what distinction you are trying to make,
> Djehuti. Could you elaborate ?
>
> Do you mean "God as a Principle" vs. a Personal
> God ( i.e., "He" ) ?
>
> Or, do you mean by "a moral goal", god as an ideal ?
I mean God as acknowledged an ideal (although treated as a personal
concept/person). [If I can find the quote I'm referring to, I'll
present it.]
>
>
> The Reformed Rodent thinks we can say at least this:
> Anyone who doesn't believe in the True God is
> ultimately an atheist. Strictly speaking, of course, an
> "atheist" is a person who denies any god exists. That's
> a rather academic definition, though. In practical terms,
> if you believe in a wrong god ( i.e., a false god ) you might
> as well be atheist.
>
> People who believe in god as a force of nature have a
> pretty thin claim to being theists. Atheist scientists
> believe in forces of nature ! The concept of "God"
> doesn't have much meaning outside of personality.
> An impersonal god seems to the Calvinist Rodent to
> be little more than a repackaging of materialism.
>
> "Imagine that. You and I are yet totally agreed on
> yet another subject."
>
> Tell Bro. Rat it's not true ! He will immediately re-examine
> his beliefs !
>
> "The Tao is not 'God' although some prefer to refer to
> it in that way."
>
> Your buddy, The DataRat, for 30 years considered
> himself ~both~ an atheist and a Taoist.
>
> "The Tao is perceived more as an understanding of
> the supreme force that is nature and therefore called
> 'The Way'."
>
> Agreed.
>
> Indeed, the Chinese word "tao" means "way". The
> Genevan Rodent used to collect translations of the
> Tao Te Ching, and many of them defined Tao as
> "the way of nature".
>
> DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The Reformed Rodent thinks we can say at least this:
> Anyone who doesn't believe in the True God is
> ultimately an atheist. Strictly speaking, of course, an
> "atheist" is a person who denies any god exists. That's
> a rather academic definition, though. In practical terms,
> if you believe in a wrong god ( i.e., a false god ) you might
> as well be atheist.
>
<snip>
How interesting! That's exactly what the Romanstried ans punished the
primitive Christians for, for being "atheists," because Christians refused
to worship the State gods.
From the Roman point of view, since the martyrs believed in the wrong god
(not the State gods) they might as well have been atheists!
The DataRat
"Don't you feel the bleakness and hoplessness of hell
coming through when reading confirmed atheist polemics?"
The Calvinist Rodent doesn't have to read atheists
to sense that, Frank. He ~was~ an atheist for thirty
years. Bro. Rat knows first-hand the quiet desperation
of atheism. Before the Most High showed mercy on
The DataRat, and regenerated him, DR was well on his
way to becoming a bitter and cynical old rodent !
"They could just sum up everything they have
to say and their view of existence as a whole
in just 3 words: All is shit."
Exactly !
What hope is there in a mechanistic, meaningless
world where we were created by accident, evolved
by chance, and shall go into oblivion when we die ?
A world where the best we can hope for is having
as much sex as possible, collecting as much money
as we can, and gaining whatever power and prestige
we might, before dying and losing it all !
Yeah, Frank, tell the Reformed Rodent about atheism.
DataRat
The DataRat
"...someone who does not know the Bible very well
e-mailed me and thanked me profusely for defending
the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity against some
heretics on these NGs who've been trying to discredit
it."
This is something that the Calvinist Rodent suspects
a lot of Christians in the newsgroups don't fully
appreciate: There are a whole lot of people reading
the threads who seldom -if ever- participate. Many
of these are new Christians, or seekers with little
knowledge of Scripture.
They read the various scoffers, false religionists,
heretics, apostates, and atheists. If we do not
counter those people, their lies and distortions
stand. This isn't evangelism, per se, but "pre-
evangelism" ( i.e., apologetics ).
"...always being ready to make a defense to
everyone who asks you to give an account..."
( 1 Peter 3:15 NASB )
The idea is to at least have a record before the
public of what the Gospel really is. Otherwise,
people only have the false "gospel" of the
anti-Christs ...one intended to deceive and lead
~away~ from Christ.
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Does 'the way of nature' exclude anything?
If the Tao is all-inclusive then nature is also
all-inclusive and NOT different from the
Judeo-Christian God who is the Alpha and
the Omega..."
Frank, your error is failing to discern between
the creation and the Creator. Or, put another
way, between the created and the uncreated.
Nature was created. It is finite and limited to
the material universe. Therefore, it can NOT be
"all-inclusive". Nature ISN'T the "Alpha and
the Omega" referenced in the Bible.
God is spiritual. The "invisible God" of Colossians
1:15 (NASB). Nature -in contrast- is very visible.
God can only be seen by His effects. Nature can
be observed in both it's effects and it's causes.
Nature may be quantified. God is unquantifiable.
Nature has limits and must work within those
principles which define it. God's providence makes
~everything~ work toward His ends !
"Tao" defines an impersonal, mindless force.
The God of the Bible is personal, and exercises
intelligent choice.
Your Pal,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"If I can find the quote I'm referring to, I'll
present it."
The Genevan Rodent awaits your posting of it.
DataRat
The DataRat
"...and all have the same basic texts..."
Hardly. The Jews have the OT. Christians
have the OT ~and~ the NT. And Moslems
has a corrupted and very dubious version
of the OT mixed with pagan philosophy.
"I believe that the time has come for Christians,
Jews Moslems and followers of all the religions
to put aside their differences and concentrate of
the 'common ground' of their faiths."
A concise statement of the Post-Modernist view !
Forget about the Gospel of Christ. Tolerance,
all-inclusiveness, and harmony are more important
than truth. Rodney King Theology ( "Can't we all
just get along ?" ). You Christians give up the
exclusive claims of Jesus, and we'll stop opposing
you.
"Am I going against the Word of God or the teachings
of Jesus in this belief ?"
Damn right !
"What is so wrong in taking the time to read the texts
of another religion and placing them in the context of
God's Word as written in ALL the bibles?"
Because they're contradictory ! You are suggesting the
heresy of Syncretism ( SEE: The DataRat's new, updated
list of Standard Heresies just published in alt.religion.
apologetics ! ).
Bro. Rat reads stuff from other religions. How do you
think he carries on his apologetics ministry here in the
newsgroups ? But, reading the scriptures and doctrines
of false religions in light of the Bible only serves to
condemn those beliefs.
There couldn't be a more effective doctrine of demons
than reading "the texts of another religion and placing
them in the context of God's Word as written in ALL
the bibles" !
"I'm not seeking dissention here, I really want to know.."
Well, the Reformed Rodent ~is~ dissenting ! "When
a person believes everything, he'll believe in anything."
DataRat
Eric Sneddon
sure that the sides are opposed because if you dont have an exact
definition of infinite then it cant be appied to an argument as one of
the premises. To say God is infinite is to apply the term infinite to
the description of God. Back in the old days they only had four numbers;
one, two, three, and many. The number 0, is a recent invention. Infinity
is defined as a specific quantity, derived mathematically as the product
of adding one to the largest number you can derive. Time for instance is
infinitly divisible and yet is not by definition infinitly long. The
number of times you can divide the number one is infinite and yet you
only need three numbers to start the derivation zero, one, and two. God
could very easily create something infinite, including God.
Pete Yadlowsky
> [Atheists] could just sum up everything they have
> to say and their view of existence as a whole in just 3 words: All is shit.
That's not what this atheist says at all. You either haven't been
listening or you're dismissing as inconvenient remarks that run contrary
to your prejudices regarding religion-less living. All is not shit. Shit
is shit, diamonds are diamonds, people are people, joy is joy, pain is
pain, and all of these are life; marvelous, self-entwining and untamed.
From all I've seen and experienced (as an ex-Christian), gods are the
invention of people who fear life's wilderness and want desperately to
know that someone is in charge, and that that someone looks more or less
favorably upon them. That's not for me.
--
Pete Yadlowsky | Serious error!
ITC | All inodes have disappeared.
University of Virginia | Screen. Mind. Both are blank.
http://boffo.itc.virginia.edu/~pmy/ |
Pete Yadlowsky
> as much sex as possible, collecting as much money
> as we can, and gaining whatever power and prestige
> we might, before dying and losing it all !
There's that old caricature again. If this is what atheism was actually
like for you, it's no wonder you turned to religion. Life without
religion just ain't for everybody, I guess.
Kevin T Rice
On 14 Oct 1998, Rev. Illuminatus Maximus wrote:
> In article <glGU1.8920$EK2.2...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>, "The DataRat"
> <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The Reformed Rodent thinks we can say at least this:
> > Anyone who doesn't believe in the True God is
> > ultimately an atheist. Strictly speaking, of course, an
> > "atheist" is a person who denies any god exists. That's
> > a rather academic definition, though. In practical terms,
> > if you believe in a wrong god ( i.e., a false god ) you might
> > as well be atheist.
> >
> <snip>
>
> How interesting! That's exactly what the Romanstried ans punished the
> primitive Christians for, for being "atheists," because Christians refused
> to worship the State gods.
>
> From the Roman point of view, since the martyrs believed in the wrong god
> (not the State gods) they might as well have been atheists!
This is a misunderstaning of atheism, based a misunderstanding of
theism. Theism does not merely mean belief that some god(s) or other
exist. Theism is a belief in Theos, one God, the Supreme Being, and not
merely belief taht such a being exists, but that this Being loves HIs
creation and has revealed Himself to us so that we can know Him. Thus
Jews, Christians, and Moslems are Theists, because they all believe that
God can and has revealed Himself. Mere belief that a God exists but has
not revealed anything to humanity is Deism.
The Romans persecuted the Christians for refusing to pay token
worship to the Emperor the way people of all other religions who did not
take their religion seriously would do. Unlike those others, Christians
really BELIEVED their religion. They knew it to be based on what God
actually did in history, not on some mythg people had made up. So of
course they disobeyed. Wouldn't you, if you believed that?
Djehuti Sundaka
others but to affirm the beliefs of the specific people. A Jew cannot affirm
the writings of Xristianity which incorporate the pagan non-biblical concepts
of a literal 'son of God' and salvation through his death and resurrection and
the rejection of the biblical command of circumcision. A Xristianon cannot
affirm the writings of the Quran which denies the divinity of the Xristos as
well as retell both biblical and extra-biblical stories in inconsistent ways.
A Muslim cannot affirm the inerrancy of previous writings which contradict the
revalations of their own nor can they accept any future revelations as their
own are supposed to be the final ones. Different beliefs in a religious
tradition arise due to an initial disagreement with previous beliefs. It is
these disagreements or differences which define these religions, not their
commonalities. All sincere believers believe their scriptures to be the
complete truth of their god. Thus, any similar scriptures which are in any way
inconsistent with the believers' scriptures, must by default not be the true
product of the believers' god and therefore not worthy of consideration. Even
when people are agreed on a common scripture, differences abound resulting in
different denomenations which cannot accept the the distorted interpretations
of the others.
The purpose of religion is not for the unification of varying perspectives or
even morality. Standards of morality have always been common to all cultures
quite apart from their religious beliefs. The purpose of any theistic religion
is first and foremost to serve its deity(s) in order to receive some benefit
(in this or another life) and/or avoid some disbenefit (in this or another
life). The religious laws by which the beliver abides by in order to serve the
deity(s) may or may not have moral implications and may even be quite immoral
as morality is never the ultimate issue, only faithful service to the
deity(s). This prohibits any ultimate coming together of differing religious
perspectives as such is not in accordance with the devout service of a specific
religious perspective's deity(s).
watcher2 wrote:
> Hmmm....let's work on this train of thought !
> Does the true word of God reside ONLY in the original texts of the Bible ?
> What version ?
> If so, then by your definition am I guilty of apopasty, and post modernist
> heretic ?
>
> I believe that the time has come for Christians, Jews Moslems and followers
> of all the religions to put aside their differences and concentrate of the
> "common ground" of their faiths.
> Jews follow the Talmud and the Torah, Moslems follow the Koran and
> Christians follow various versions of the Bible and all claim exclusive
> rights to salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven, and all have the same basic
> texts and claim the same lineage from Adam through to Noah and Abraham.
> Why is it that we all brand each other unbelievers and somehow find
> justifications in the Word to avoid the prohibitions against violence and
> avoid following the commandment to Love one another ?
>
> Am I going against the Word of God or the teachings of Jesus in this belief
> ?
>
> What is so wrong in taking the time to read the texts of another religion
> and placing them in the context of God's Word as written in ALL the bibles?
Djehuti Sundaka
to this newsgroup [alt.bible] (as this is the only way I can think of
for retrieving it at this time)?
Frank A.S.
>
I DO believe in my Church).
>
statement like that can only come from a member of the Roman Catholic Church . This embodies the
central problem we Protestants have with the RCC, - the demand of church leaders, that one is to
believe in THEM, that is in men who consider themselves chosen as interpreters of scripture, rather
than in the Bible as the Holy Spirit reveals it to the reader (Matt. 11:25).
The net result is an appalling ignorance of scripture in the RC world which the RCC does NOT
address for fear of schism. With Biblical ignorance comes lack of faith, and lack of faith leads to
poverty -spiritually AND materially. Next month I will be in the mainly RC Philippines again, trying
to encourage Bible reading and Bible study. Till recently this same Church that you "DO believe in"
(or rather its leaders) forbade the reading of the Bible and/or ANY Christian Scripture. Even such
innocuous books as The Confessions of St. Augustin were forbidden and considered a venial sin which
needed to be confessed and repented of.
It should be clear to you by now that a church can be highjacked by agents of Satan without its
believers being aware of it. The demand by such leaders to believe in THEM rather than scripture
should be an indication thereof.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
The world needs LOVE (the Spirit of Christ).
To LOVE Jesus is to obey His commandments.
His commandments are this: LOVE.
If you have LOVE, the Kingdom of heaven is within you.
If you have no LOVE, you are already in hell.
People are in hell because they refuse to LOVE (2 Tess. 2:10)
The LOVE of God is a consuming fire that burns the HELL right out of
the sinner.
LOVE torments a legion of demons.
Knowing LOVE is absolute heaven.
Having no LOVE is absolute hell.
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
The DataRat
"This embodies the central problem we
Protestants have with the RCC..."
Good point, Frank !
Romanists don't even notice they're doing it,
but -listening to them- you'll always hear more
about Mary, their church, and the pope, than about
Grace, Salvation, and Christ.
"With Biblical ignorance..."
Going to disagree with you here, Frank. Maybe the
typical catholic is Biblically illiterate. So is the average
Protestant. But, the Reformed Rodent has been debating
these guys in the newsgroups of late, and these ones
know their Scripture. Their exegesis often borders on
naivete, but their Bible knowledge more than adequate.
"Even such innocuous books as The Confessions of
St. Augustin were forbidden and considered a venial
sin which needed to be confessed and repented of."
THAT'S ~not~ surprising ! Augustine was the first
Calvinist !
The DataRat
The DataRat
Djehuti Sundaka
gods. Poly-theism is the belief in many gods. Pan-theism is the belief in
everything as god. All of these (and even deism) are theism, not just
Judeo-Xristiano-Islamic monotheism.
Djehuti Sundaka
Frank A.S.
>> A world where the best we can hope for is having
>> as much sex as possible, collecting as much money
>> as we can, and gaining whatever power and prestige
>> we might, before dying and losing it all !
>
>There's that old caricature again. If this is what atheism was actually
>like for you, it's no wonder you turned to religion. Life without
>religion just ain't for everybody, I guess.
>
>--
Now that you have successfully and with great élan refuted the validity of DRs Christian
presumptions, please DO sell us on the atheist point of view and show us already the attractiveness
of "Life without religion" by telling us: -What IS the purpose of life for the average atheist like
yourself, if not the above?
Frank A.S.
>>
>>"Does 'the way of nature' exclude anything?
>> If the Tao is all-inclusive then nature is also
>> all-inclusive and NOT different from the
>> Judeo-Christian God who is the Alpha and
>> the Omega..."
>
>The God of the Bible is personal, and exercises
>intelligent choice.
>
issues existence and life and into the other side all returns in death. Interesting though that our
God also used his mouth to create. For He spoke everything into being in Genesis, except man, into
whom He breathed life.
I see presently (and who knows where the Holy Spirit will lead) all existence from the viewpoint
of John 1:1 and Plato's pre-existence of "Forms" incidentally, as Plato's philosophy permeated the
mid-East during NT times.
"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God" (John 1:1). This
means to me that the word is an abstraction, idea / ideal and potential of what can exist. It is
eternal, contains all knowledge, omnipotent, self-awareness etc. the Word has in fact all the
attributes of God and IS both God and WITH God.
If the Word is in fact both God and with God, then God can separate Himself from all Words or
ideas and is NOT a mechanical entity.
"The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) meaning the act of creation. Therefore God is both Word
and the object the Word represents and we have our being IN Him (Acts 17:28). Nothing exists outside
of God, for God is all inclusive -"The Alpha and the Omega".
Though you are right about the Tao being "Nature". I always assumed, that "Nature" was also all
inclusive, because what is NOT within the province of Nature? Unless we can draw a clear line
between nature and non-nature, we cannot be clear what the Tao represents, or does NOT represent. I
am inclined therefore to assume the Tao to be AS all inclusive as God, the difference being only in
the eye of the beholder. For if the Tao does in fact excludes hypothetical 'non-nature', then the
Tao cannot be THEE Tao.
Frank A.S.
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> [Atheists] could just sum up everything they have
>> to say and their view of existence as a whole in just 3 words: All is shit.
>
>That's not what this atheist says at all. You either haven't been
>listening or you're dismissing as inconvenient remarks that run contrary
>to your prejudices regarding religion-less living.
Your very answer proves that you have nothing positive to add except expressing your view that
everything a theist has to say IS SHIT!
All is not shit.
Prove it by telling us enthusiastically about your philosophical discoveries and insights, so
that we will have a desire to adopt you philosophy of life. Just telling us we are wrong about
everything does NOT get us to support you.
>From all I've seen and experienced (as an ex-Christian), gods are the
>invention of people who fear life's wilderness and want desperately to
>know that someone is in charge, and that that someone looks more or less
>favorably upon them. That's not for me.
>
Of course it's a matter of mind, but at least a positive mind (holy spirit), one who extolls
caring love of a perfect man who laid down his life for us while we were still imperfect. It all
pivots about what kind of relationship one has with life. Is it: Rebellion? Obedience to duty? Love?
Unfortunately caring love, agape is NOT subject to man's will. Is that the end of it? For you it
seems to be. You gave up and haven't discovered anything captivating since, or you would have given
at least a hint in your post.
Pete Yadlowsky
> [...] please DO sell us on the atheist point of view and show us already the attractiveness
> of "Life without religion" by telling us:
I'm not interested in selling anybody on anything. We must each find our
own way. My aim here is to expose you and others to a point of view you
may not be aware of, that you may perhaps be edified and so co-exist
more easily with those who do not share your beliefs. Also, I'm not
aware of any single atheist point of view. I can only offer my own.
> What IS the purpose of life for the average atheist like
> yourself, if not the above?
I don't know any average atheists. Again, I speak only for myself. You
(and many others) feel that life must have some designated purpose in
order to be worthwhile. As I've stated in a previous article (did you
not see it?), I do not. As far as I'm concerned, my life (all of life)
is complete in and of itself and does not need to serve some end. Life
is its own purpose, if you like.
Pete Yadlowsky
> >> [Atheists] could just sum up everything they have
> >> to say and their view of existence as a whole in just 3 words: All is shit.
> >That's not what this atheist says at all. You either haven't been
> >listening or you're dismissing as inconvenient remarks that run contrary
> >to your prejudices regarding religion-less living.
> Your very answer proves that you have nothing positive to add except expressing your view that
> everything a theist has to say IS SHIT!
How do get this from what I've said? It is not my position that
everything a theist says is shit. I was pointing out that your own
summation of the atheist outlook ("all is shit") is plainly contrary to
everything this atheist has been saying, if you've been listening.
> >All is not shit.
> Prove it by telling us enthusiastically about your philosophical discoveries and insights, so
> that we will have a desire to adopt you philosophy of life.
First, I'm not interested in converting anyone to anything, as I mention
in another article. I can't eat for you; you have to chew your own food.
Second, I've been expounding on my outlook over the course of several
articles, using in several instances enthusiastic words like "wonderful"
and "marvelous", as I recall. So, I get the impression you're not
reading my articles or you're just ignoring the contents. Naturally,
this makes me quite disinclined to repeat what I've said.
Kevin T Rice
The Christian God transcends nature. He created it. He did not
have to. He is SUPER-natural and transcendent.
Unless we can draw a clear line
> between nature and non-nature, we cannot be clear what the Tao represents, or does NOT represent. I
> am inclined therefore to assume the Tao to be AS all inclusive as God, the difference being only in
> the eye of the beholder. For if the Tao does in fact excludes hypothetical 'non-nature', then the
> Tao cannot be THEE Tao.
>
Kevin T Rice
Frank, I am just curious - do you think tatthe beloved discipl
would approve of your reading of John 1?
> inclusive, because what is NOT within the province of Nature? Unless we can draw a clear line
The DataRat
"The Christian God transcends nature. He created
it. He did not have to. He is SUPER-natural and
transcendent."
Exactly the point that the Calvinist Rodent was
trying to make to Frank about him confusing
creation with the Creator, Kevin.
DR
Djehuti Sundaka
The DataRat wrote:
> "If I can find the quote I'm referring to, I'll
> present it."
>
> The Genevan Rodent awaits your posting of it.
>
> DataRat
Okay, here's the statement I was looking for
"Any presumption about the existence of god(s) is illogical and
invalid for the following reason: If GOD is presumed to be the author of
existence, He cannot Himself exist. If God were to exist, the question
arises who, or what caused God to exist?"
"The answer must then lie outside the existence / non-existence
parameter. One must conclude therefore, that God is a purely theoretical
construct and exists solely in the minds of man as a spiritual potential
to be realized, an important metaphor for man's ideals."
Kevin T Rice
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Djehuti Sundaka wrote:
>
>
> The DataRat wrote:
>
> > "If I can find the quote I'm referring to, I'll
> > present it."
> >
> > The Genevan Rodent awaits your posting of it.
> >
> > DataRat
>
> Okay, here's the statement I was looking for
>
> "Any presumption about the existence of god(s) is illogical and
> invalid for the following reason: If GOD is presumed to be the author of
> existence, He cannot Himself exist. If God were to exist, the question
> arises who, or what caused God to exist?"
Where is this a quote from? I think this may be one of the
stupidest pseudo-philosophical statements to be quoted since I've started
frequenting this NG! Who or what caused the Uncaused First Cause?!?
Nonsense!
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<kr...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
<snip>
"the governor tried to persuade him to recant, saying, "Have respect for
your age," and other similar things that they usually say; "Swear by the
genius of the emperor. Recant. Say, 'Away with the atheists!' " Polycarp,
with a sober expression, looked at all the mob... in the stadium... and
said, "Away with the atheists!" The governor persisted and said, "Swear
and I will let you go. Curse Christ!" But Polycarp answered, "...If you
delude yourself into thinking that I will swear by the emperor's
genius...listen and I will tell you plainly: I am a Christian."
(Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, Christian Martyrs, pp. 9-10, quoted in Elaine
Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels, p.80, pub. A.D.1979)
****************
"Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, through whom I can attain to God. I
am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may
become pure bread of Christ... Let there come upon me fire, and the cross,
and struggle with wild beasts, cutting and tearing apart, racking of
bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of my whole body...may I but attain to
Jesus Christ!"
(Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, quoted in Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic
Gospels, p.82, pub. A.D.1979)
The DataRat
"I think this may be one of the stupidest
pseudo-philosophical statements to be
quoted since I've started frequenting this
NG!"
Djehuti, the Calvinist Rodent is going to
concur with Kevin's statement above.
DataRat
Barry O'Grady
:
:
:"Will you PLEASE fix the settings in your
: News-reader?"
:
:
:
:Not "fix", Frank. The Genevan Rodent's settings
:are not ~broke~. He CHANGED the settings.
:There was a reason why, too:
He likes to pretend he is talking to himself.
Frank A.S.
>>"With Biblical ignorance..."
>
>Going to disagree with you here, Frank. Maybe the
>typical catholic is Biblically illiterate. So is the average
>Protestant.
I have travelled extensively through RC countries and do some missionary work in the
Philippines. Virtually no RCC outside of the USA offers Bible study for either children or adults.
In fact, until recently reading "sacret text" such as the Bible and even such innocuous works as The
Confessions Of St. Augustin were considered a venial sin which had to be confessed and repented of.
I have never seen a Protestant church which did NOT offer Bible study classes to all ages, did
you? This does NOT preclude Protestant Bible illiteracy of course, despite all efforts to the
contrary.
>THAT'S ~not~ surprising ! Augustine was the first
>Calvinist !
>
I thought YOU were a Calvinist? How do you square that, plus my previous unanswered questions
concerning your Calvinism?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
If you live in LOVE, God dwells in you (1 John 4:16)
If you LOVE others, you know God because God is LOVE (1 John 4:7-8)
We know we are saved if we LOVE others (1 John 3:14)
If you do not LOVE others, you do not LOVE God (1 John 4:20)
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
The DataRat
"I thought YOU were a Calvinist? How do you square that..."
What's there to square with Calvinism ? It was Augustine
who wrote the commentary that got Luther to understand
Sola Fide. Luther started what Calvin completed.
"plus my previous unanswered questions concerning your
Calvinism?"
Must have missed 'em, Frank. Repost 'em in a new
thread with an "Attnt.: DataRat" header.
The DataRat
Frank A.S.
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> [Atheists] could just sum up everything they have
>> to say and their view of existence as a whole in just 3 words: All is shit.
>
>That's not what this atheist says at all. You either haven't been
>listening or you're dismissing as inconvenient remarks that run contrary
>to your prejudices regarding religion-less living.
>
atheist you have no choice but to denigrate everything a theist says. My objection is, that you do
it in religious NGs, in which theists wish to be safe from satanic attacks and uplift their God and
His principles and ideals of perfection.
What IS your purpose here? You DO have your own NGs, don't you?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Being a REFUTER is easy, fun, and requires only a little basic knowledge
as to how to: I.e.
1. follow a post
2. copy and paste
3. create a space in your opponents post
4. insert blanket invalidations and negations
5. invent outlandish examples and stupid questions
6. answer your own questions with categorical statements
N.B. Never volunteer evidence or disclose your own convictions
-à la R.F. Hall's Refuter's Instruction Manual
Peter M. Yadlowsky
Frank A.S. <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Pete Yadlowsky wrote in message <36260443...@virginia.edu>...
>>That's not what this atheist says at all. You either haven't been
>>listening or you're dismissing as inconvenient remarks that run contrary
>>to your prejudices regarding religion-less living.
> "Religion-less living" is diametrically opposed to what people in religious NGs stand for. As an
>atheist you have no choice but to denigrate everything a theist says.
You don't get to decide for me what I do or don't denigrate. I find much of
value in the writings of theist Thomas Merton, for example.
>My objection is, that you do
>it in religious NGs, in which theists wish to be safe from satanic attacks and uplift their God and
>His principles and ideals of perfection.
For whom are you uplifting these things, if not for these "agents of Satan"
you would lock out? Of what use is preaching to the choir?
> What IS your purpose here?
I explained that in a previous article. Did you not see it?
> You DO have your own NGs, don't you?
As has already been pointed out, these are public forums. They are for
the discussion of religion, pro and con. If you don't want to be exposed
to opposing viewpoints, consider joining or starting a moderated newsgroup.
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
I have yet to see from you anything resembling kindness or compassion.
Your favorite analogy of the tone-deaf chorus member is the definition
of irony.
Frank A.S.
>
>> What IS your purpose here?
>
>I explained that in a previous article. Did you not see it?
>
I did not.
>> You DO have your own NGs, don't you?
>
>As has already been pointed out, these are public forums. They are for
>the discussion of religion, pro and con.
That is correct. But you don't wish to discuss religion sympathetically, from the evidence you
wish nothing else than to dump your hate of theists and their Holy Books into our NGs. You are
merely a refuter trolling religious NGs to snag Christians and use them and their Bible as a target
for your vilifications, denigrations and refutations. You are a downer, a nagger, a habitual
negative thinker probably brought about by your chronic depression. If you want to find a way out of
your private hell, you need to take Christ and His message seriously. That's what He is here for, to
give you life and that more abundantly (John 10:10).
Wanting to "discuss" is one thing, but to tell us off in our own NGs is quite another, and when
you do that I have the right and obligation
to tell you to scram.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
THE REFUTER'S INSTRUCTION KIT: FREE
So, you have a computer and you now find yourself sitting in your dark
lonely room night after night, with the glow of the monitor on your face
and your limp sweaty hand on your mouse.
You tried the 'chat rooms' and were disappointed when you found your
true love was a pervert twice your age and the same sex. Now you're
scrolling through the news groups and you'd like to participate but you
don't have ANYTHING to say. Well, don't be sad; there is no need to feel
left out, -for you too can be a REFUTER!
With the following simple guidelines, you too can see your name next to
post after post. You WILL get e-mail from people you don't know, and,
best of all, people will notice you.
To be a Refuter, you must first find a Poster. That is someone who has
something to say and creates a post. The wonderful thing is you don't
have to know anything about the poster's subject. Just follow the provided
outline: -à la R.F. Hall's Refuter's Instruction Manual
merlin
> That is correct. But you don't wish to discuss religion sympathetically,
now you are telling people how to think? you really do have a big
spiritual ego if you can demand sympathy while giving none.
merlin
satan loves it when you get off the message of jesus love in the world and
into the politics of your religion enstead.
Pete Yadlowsky
> >> What IS your purpose here?
> >I explained that in a previous article. Did you not see it?
> I did not.
Then here it is again: my intent is to present to believers a take on
unbelief (my own) that they may not have been aware of; to perhaps to
begin to dissolve the dearly held caricature of atheists as subhumans
who live only to pursue sex, money, power or what have you. At 41 years
of age, I'm not the horny young stud I once was, so sex isn't as big a
deal anymore (this is actually rather liberating in its own way). I'm
not wealthy but financially comfortable, and have no particular interest
in pursuing huge piles of cash; got other, more fun stuff to do. And
power? What am I going to do with that? I can't even be bothered to wear
a tie, let alone run for office or head huge corporations. Basically,
I'm just a cause and an effect of all the forces and substances spinning
around and through me. I acquire and lose form as they do and expect to
one day dissolve into nothing. I'm content in not-knowing and so do not
need to either postulate or refute the existence of a being that is
all-knowing. I just enjoy participating in the process, for as long or
as briefly as I may. You might perhaps see, then, that I have no use for
religion. Direct experience of and participation in whatever this is
leaves little time for idle conjecture and belief.
> >As has already been pointed out, these are public forums. They are for
> >the discussion of religion, pro and con.
> That is correct. But you don't wish to discuss religion sympathetically,
I don't have to. You've simply said nothing so far that I can agree
with, and you've been on the whole quite rude and arrogant, not so much
with me as with others. And they with you as well, but you're supposed
to know better than to retaliate in kind.
> from the evidence you
> wish nothing else than to dump your hate of theists and their Holy Books into our NGs.
Oh, please. I don't hate theists. Virtually all of my friends are
theists.
> Wanting to "discuss" is one thing, but to tell us off in our own NGs is quite another, and when
> you do that I have the right and obligation
> to tell you to scram.
Well, I'm not going to scram until I've said all I care to say. So
there. Besides, didn't you recently advise your fellows not to respond
to us agents of Satan? One of the best ways to get someone to scram is
to ignore them.
Frank A.S.
>dear frank,
>
>> That is correct. But you don't wish to discuss religion sympathetically,
>
>spiritual ego if you can demand sympathy while giving none.
>into the politics of your religion enstead.
You need to make a decision. Either you are FOR Christ or AGAINST Christ. Religious NGs don't
need trolling atheists coming in to spew their hate for religions and contempt for their adherents.
Any believer who lets himself and His God be abused without standing up and be counted
non-violently, shows his cowardliness and lack of respect for the millions of Christian martyrs who
gave their lives in non-violent defense of their faith.
What DO you stand for, Merlin?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
2. SLUR THE POSTER
This is Racist! You are a bigot! A cult leader!
You are a mental defective! Intellectually challenged!
You are a fool, twit, moron, hypocrite!
You are a moral degenerate! A deviate! A pervert!
You have been spewing your garbage over the internet!
Peter M. Yadlowsky
Frank A.S. <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> You need to make a decision. Either you are FOR Christ or AGAINST Christ.
You don't get to choose others' alliances for them, either. The two
points you offer here encompass a continuum of possible positions,
including neutrality.
merlin
> You need to make a decision. Either you are FOR Christ or AGAINST Christ.
which are you? it is you that needs to decide to be for christ and move
away from prejudice and misinformation. you have made more than one
false statement in defense of your interpretation of the bible.
> Religious NGs don't
> need trolling atheists coming in to spew their hate for religions and
contempt > for their adherents.
your rudeness does not make you a christian. and you have never spoken to
jesus -- so much of what you believe is just conjecture.
and where do you get the idea tha merlin is an atheist?
> Any believer who lets himself and His God be abused without standing
up and be counted
you are abusing god everytime you post here in hate and
selfrighteousness. you present yourself as ajudgmental mean spirited
political religionist and you call merlin names. what is your point?
> non-violently, shows his cowardliness and lack of respect for the
millions of Christian
you are the one defacing your own religion. either live by the message of
jesus or do not, it is your joice, merlin has nothing to do with your mean
spirited posts.
> martyrs who
i do not believe in human or animal sacrefices to or for god. i do not
believe in salvation by human sacrefice. that you do speaks volumes for
your violent behavior against those that disagree with you.
> gave their lives in non-violent defense of their faith.
i would rather you preached living for your faith, but you insist on
speaking of dying for your faith. until this death wish stops we will see
more violence against selected groups by chrisitains that think like you.
> What DO you stand for, Merlin?
please explain, i am presently sitting at a computer.
merlin
again, you post without mentioning jesus message of love and forgivance in
the world.
Frank A.S.
>
>points you offer here encompass a continuum of possible positions,
>including neutrality.
>
ideals, principles of aims of perfection in life. It is a sure prescription for a chronic and
permanent state of depression. It's hell.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
We LOVE God not for His perfection and promise, but because
He first LOVED us first, while we where yet imperfect (1 John 4:19)
LOVE conquers all.
LOVE makes the world go around.
LOVE powers the Universe and every heart in LOVE.
LOVE can save your soul from the grave. God is LOVE.
LOVE won't keep, therefore give it away before it's too late.
LOVE only is real. Death is the Grand illusion.
LOVE --------- Don't leave this earth without it.
LOVE grows forever to eternity.
LOVE is more than a feeling, it is eternal Life.
LOVE transcends the chemical and physical.
LOVE shows the Way and is the Way.
-Kevin Williams in alt.bible
Frank A.S.
>> What DO you stand for, Merlin?
>
>please explain, i am presently sitting at a computer.
>
Just as I thought! You have no principles nor character ideals which you try to live up to, to
show us. You are a permanent downer, a gadfly, nagger, accuser and refuter who has nothing positive
to contribute in religious NGs, beyond expressing your hatred and jealousy for Christians rejoicing
in their Lord in their religious NGs. That is your only real purpose in life, isn't it?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe in anything."
-anon-
Pete Yadlowsky
> As much as there are shades of gray, being neither FOR good, not against evil and having no
> ideals, principles of aims of perfection in life.
Seeing and acting naturally from empathy, from connectedness, there is
no need or room for such mental clutter as "good", "evil", "ideal" or
"perfection". One simply does what needs doing, like scratching an itch.
> It is a sure prescription for a chronic and
> permanent state of depression. It's hell.
Maybe for you.
Djehuti Sundaka
or by those who are atheists, but I am bothered by hypocrates who would
make such statements as the one quoted while pretending to be a champion
for theism. Such should either declare themselves agnostic or decide
which side of the fence they are going to commit to.
Djehuti Sundaka
reveal that the author can be found in the archives under the heading "Is The
Existence Of God Logical?" on 98/09/29.
Kevin T Rice wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Djehuti Sundaka wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > > "If I can find the quote I'm referring to, I'll
> > > present it."
> > >
> > > The Genevan Rodent awaits your posting of it.
> > >
> > > DataRat
> >
> > Okay, here's the statement I was looking for
> >
> > "Any presumption about the existence of god(s) is illogical and
> > invalid for the following reason: If GOD is presumed to be the author of
> > existence, He cannot Himself exist. If God were to exist, the question
> > arises who, or what caused God to exist?"
>
> Where is this a quote from? I think this may be one of the
> stupidest pseudo-philosophical statements to be quoted since I've started
merlin
> Just as I thought! You have no principles nor character ideals which you
try to live up to, to
> show us.
please list what details in merlin's post bring you to this statement.
and please be specific.
everytime i have asked you for details of your claims and statements here
on christnet, you do not respond. you have made many false statements
here on christnet and then ignore requests for your clarification.
are you saying you would rather continue your personal attacks than show a
willingness to discuss what is really on your mind..
> You are a permanent downer, a gadfly, nagger, accuser and refuter who
has nothing positive
this is you message of the love of jesus to merlin? this is your ministry
to call merlin names?
you frank are what accuse others of being.
> to contribute in religious NGs, beyond expressing your hatred and
jealousy for Christians rejoicing
look at the header of this thread, there is no rejoicing on your part the
header has an insult aimed at atheists in it.
> in their Lord in their religious NGs. That is your only real purpose in
life, isn't it?
i ask anyone that claims to know god, how they practice their beliefs.
when i see contradictions between thoughts and deeds merlin speaks up, and
when the rocks are over turned all sorts of creatures crawl out from
underneath with bad attitudes.=;-)
in love,
merlin
Libertarius
writes:
===>I am so glad someone else is ready to put Mr. A.S. in his place!
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
watcher2
He's most definitely not a Hypocrite, he's merely pointing out a logical
fallacy in the posts subject line.
The original post on the subject was so obscure and self substantiating as
to make your average Jacobean Jesuit blush in embarrassment.
Overly embellished circular argument does nothing to enlighten anyone...the
term used for this kind of self aggrandizing pontification is "pedantry".
I'm getting pretty close to the edge here myself.
Please go back over the thread and see for yourself.
I hope you change your mind...the Rat isn't such a bad sort, though I don't
agree with everything he says, he's at the very least sincere in his beliefs
and I have to respect that.
Apologies Rat.....Had to step in, though you need little defense as you're
quite capable mounting a credible one all on your own. Just hate to see a
rodent clubbed unnecessarily 8-)
Djehuti Sundaka wrote in message <362E1C1E...@ix.netcom.com>...
>I too, would have to agree. I am not bothered by those who are theists
>or by those who are atheists, but I am bothered by hypocrates who would
>make such statements as the one quoted while pretending to be a champion
>for theism. Such should either declare themselves agnostic or decide
>which side of the fence they are going to commit to.
>
>The DataRat wrote:
>
>> "I think this may be one of the stupidest
>> pseudo-philosophical statements to be
>> quoted since I've started frequenting this
>> NG!"
>>
Kevin T Rice
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, watcher2 wrote:
> Djehuti...I have to come to the defense of the Rat!
> He's most definitely not a Hypocrite, he's merely pointing out a logical
> fallacy in the posts subject line.
> The original post on the subject was so obscure and self substantiating as
> to make your average Jacobean Jesuit blush in embarrassment.
> Overly embellished circular argument does nothing to enlighten anyone...the
> term used for this kind of self aggrandizing pontification is "pedantry".
> I'm getting pretty close to the edge here myself.
>
> Please go back over the thread and see for yourself.
> I hope you change your mind...the Rat isn't such a bad sort, though I don't
> agree with everything he says, he's at the very least sincere in his beliefs
> and I have to respect that.
In any case, DataRat was only concuring with MY original statement. The
alleged insults were mine, not his. He was just quoting me and agreeing.
Furthermore, saying that a STATEMENT is stupid is in no sense incompatible
with any form of religious theism. A Quaker could get away with what I
said.
>
> Apologies Rat.....Had to step in, though you need little defense as you're
> quite capable mounting a credible one all on your own. Just hate to see a
> rodent clubbed unnecessarily 8-)
>
>
>
> Djehuti Sundaka wrote in message <362E1C1E...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >I too, would have to agree. I am not bothered by those who are theists
> >or by those who are atheists, but I am bothered by hypocrates who would
> >make such statements as the one quoted while pretending to be a champion
> >for theism. Such should either declare themselves agnostic or decide
> >which side of the fence they are going to commit to.
> >
How does calling a STATEMENT stupid make me a "hypocrate"?
Sam Taylor
For GOD (woops!) the first and third person of the
Holy Trinity so loved the world, that HE (woops!)
they Gave (sorry) LOANED HIS (woops!) THIER
Only begotten(woops!) conceptualized Son (sorry
the second person of the Trinity that Whosoever
Might believe on him(woops!) THAT WHOSOEVER MIGHT GET THIS HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE
should
not perish,but have everlasting Life.
For GOD (sorry) THE FIRST AND SECOND
PERSONS OF THE TRINITY sent not HIS (woops!)
THIER SON (WOOPS)other personality unto
the world, to condemn the world but the through HIM
(woops) the second person of the Trinity Might
Be saved.
Frank A.S.
>"Frank A.S." wrote:
>
>> As much as there are shades of gray, being neither FOR good, not against evil and having no
>> ideals, principles of aims of perfection in life.
>
>Seeing and acting naturally from empathy, from connectedness, there is
>no need or room for such mental clutter as "good", "evil", "ideal" or
>"perfection". One simply does what needs doing, like scratching an itch.
>
OK to kill Commies, Jews, unborn healthy babies etc. or tells you to do it, and therefore it can't
be evil, right? Doing good or evil is from a feeling of "empathy and connectedness", instead of
principles and ideals is: "Like scratching an itch" really!!!!!! For lack of character, some people
let the government or the current fashion / friends do the thinking for them. Are one of them?
Peter M. Yadlowsky
Frank A.S. <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>Seeing and acting naturally from empathy, from connectedness, there is
>>no need or room for such mental clutter as "good", "evil", "ideal" or
>>"perfection". One simply does what needs doing, like scratching an itch.
> You vote from your feeling of "empathy and connectedness" for a government which tells you it's
>OK to kill Commies, Jews, unborn healthy babies etc. or tells you to do it, and therefore it can't
>be evil, right? Doing good or evil is from a feeling of "empathy and connectedness", instead of
>principles and ideals is: "Like scratching an itch" really!!!!!! For lack of character, some people
>let the government or the current fashion / friends do the thinking for them. Are one of them?
I don't know how you get any of this from anything I've said. Is this
some kind of performance art? "Improvisational Comprehension"?
Djehuti Sundaka
observe where I state that "I too, would have to agree". I am in agreement with
both the DataRat and Kevin on this particular matter. The hypocrate I referred
to was the author of the statement in question. In my post to Kevin, I gave
information for finding the author's name from his original post as I was not
willing to reveal it. The author is one who pretends to be a theist while quite
viciously denouncing anyone who doesn't share his views as being either atheists
or homosexuals (collectively referring to them as "agents of Satan"). For him
to have publically made the clearly atheistic statement he made while otherwise
pretending to champion theism is quite intolerably hypocritical to me. Again,
on this particular issue, the DataRat, Kevin, and I are in full agreement. None
of us were being attacked.
watcher2 wrote:
> Djehuti...I have to come to the defense of the Rat!
> He's most definitely not a Hypocrite, he's merely pointing out a logical
> fallacy in the posts subject line.
> The original post on the subject was so obscure and self substantiating as
> to make your average Jacobean Jesuit blush in embarrassment.
> Overly embellished circular argument does nothing to enlighten anyone...the
> term used for this kind of self aggrandizing pontification is "pedantry".
> I'm getting pretty close to the edge here myself.
>
> Please go back over the thread and see for yourself.
> I hope you change your mind...the Rat isn't such a bad sort, though I don't
> agree with everything he says, he's at the very least sincere in his beliefs
> and I have to respect that.
>
> Apologies Rat.....Had to step in, though you need little defense as you're
> quite capable mounting a credible one all on your own. Just hate to see a
> rodent clubbed unnecessarily 8-)
>
> Djehuti Sundaka wrote in message <362E1C1E...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >I too, would have to agree. I am not bothered by those who are theists
> >or by those who are atheists, but I am bothered by hypocrates who would
> >make such statements as the one quoted while pretending to be a champion
> >for theism. Such should either declare themselves agnostic or decide
> >which side of the fence they are going to commit to.
> >
Doug Schiffer
> You vote from your feeling of "empathy and connectedness" for a government which tells you it's
> OK to kill Commies, Jews, unborn healthy babies etc.
There's no such creature as an unborn baby.
Me, I think its diabolically evil to continue to promote population
growth in an overpopulated world.
We should be doing everything ethically possible to stop population
growth. Giving women the right to control their own fertility is an
essential part of it.
It is your side that is on the side of evil on this issue. Population
control is moral and ethical.
You know I am right on this one.
--
It's time to become hysterical about the Java 146,138,512AD Date Bug!
Remove '.XYZZY' to reply via email. Spam sucks.
Brian L.
Religions" completely ignores both the letter and the spirit of Scriptures. It ignores man's nature to
sin against his Creator, it ignores the fact that the most voracious wars in the history of mankind were
waged in the name of religion, it ignores the substitutionry atonement of CHrist for the sins of the
Word - most of all. (which is why Satan promotes religion)
Frank A.S. wrote:
> The DataRat wrote in message <9D2U1.1397$EK2.1...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
> >
> >"ALL religions are basically prescriptions for
> >spiritual healing, but some are better and/or
> >more effective than others. Just because some
> >believe in a less effective method or prescription
> >should be no reason for condemnation or hate..."
> >
> >Sorry, Frank, but it's NOT a matter of degree.
> >Christianity isn't better than the pagan religions.
> >Christianity is the one, true religion.
>
> I know this to be true.
>
> All the others are false religions.
>
> I know this to be untrue. Judaism is NOT a false religion, but without Christ an incomplete
> religion. The compassion of the Buddha is not wrong because it is not Christian. In fact I believe,
> that ALL humanity from the beginning of mankind were saved by what Jesus stood for, namely caring
> love for others. Your way, all humanity up to Christ are frying in hell.
> >
> >Christ is not one of the saviors ( or guru, or
> >teachers or whatever ), just maybe better. Nor
> >is Christ at the top of a hierarchy of saviors/
> >guru/teachers. The claims of Christ -as exposited
> >by Scripture- are exclusive. Either Jesus is very
> >God, or He was a fool or a liar.
> >
>
> I have no argument against that, for that is what I believe too. But just because of that, I
> have no reason to quit reading and contemplating Old Testament prophets, or other wise men, though
> they knew nothing of Christ.
>
> >Condemnation of false religions isn't only OK,
> >it's prescribed by Scripture. Also, we are to love
> >the truth and hate falsehood.
> >
>
> "Condemnation" is not furthering the kingdom, nor is you advocating Muslim shariah law or OT
> laws heavily weighted in favour of the death penalty by stoning, but the persuasive method of Paul
> in Greece, i.e. preaching "as smart as a serpent, but as harmless as a dove". Most people have other
> religions because they are ignorant of Christianity, not because they need condemnation for the
> religion they got. That includes atheists. They are the only ones who DO need condemnation, for they
> know the truth but reject. They are therefore agents of Satan.
> >
> You still haven't got my name against my quote, nor the proper number of >> marking my lines.
> Are you not going to fix it?
>
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
Brian L.
Brian L.
Frank A.S.
>In article <70rhg3$ghj$1...@goblin.uunet.ca>,
>Frank A.S. <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>>>Seeing and acting naturally from empathy, from connectedness, there is
>>>no need or room for such mental clutter as "good", "evil", "ideal" or
>>>"perfection". One simply does what needs doing, like scratching an itch.
>
it's
can't
>>be evil, right? Doing good or evil is from a feeling of "empathy and connectedness", instead of
>>principles and ideals is: "Like scratching an itch" really!!!!!! For lack of character, some
people
>>let the government or the current fashion / friends do the thinking for them. Are one of them?
>
>I don't know how you get any of this from anything I've said. Is this
>some kind of performance art? "Improvisational Comprehension"?
>
all left in your attic, you poor clod. Don't you know, that "empathy and connectedness" are
functions of caring love (which IS the Christian God as per 1 John 4:8) and which are NOT subject to
man's will?
My main objection is with your use of colloquialism in an academic discussions of a religious /
philosophical nature. "Like scratching etc." Really!!!!!!
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe in anything."
-anon-
Frank A.S.
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>> You vote from your feeling of "empathy and connectedness" for a government which tells you
it's
>> OK to kill Commies, Jews, unborn healthy babies etc.
>
>There's no such creature as an unborn baby.
>Me, I think its diabolically evil to continue to promote population
>growth in an overpopulated world.
>We should be doing everything ethically possible to stop population
>growth. Giving women the right to control their own fertility is an
>essential part of it.
>It is your side that is on the side of evil on this issue. Population
>control is moral and ethical.
You sound like Hitler when he went for the "control" of racial purity. If we ever get to killing
ANY humans for the sake of expediency, you can come and get me first, for I don't want to live in
such a world. Do you?
Peter M. Yadlowsky
Frank A.S. <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Don't you know, that "empathy and connectedness" are
>functions of caring love (which IS the Christian God as per 1 John 4:8) and which are NOT subject to
>man's will?
First, it's the other way around: love is a by-product of empathy. Second,
while it's true that one cannot directly will oneself to be empathic (any
more than any sense can be willed into existence), I don't see how your
remark addresses my comments regarding good, evil and the like. To recap,
when empathy is in charge, there is no need to bother oneself about
relative abstractions like "good", "evil" or "perfection". In fact,
preoccupation with these things is an impediment to empathy. When
empathy is not in charge, attempts to effect goodness or perfection
(whatever they may mean at the moment) are mere empty gestures.
> My main objection is with your use of colloquialism in an academic discussions of a religious /
>philosophical nature.
That's odd, since you seem to have no qualms about throwing insults in the
course of this "academic discussion". In any event, I'm not aware of any
rule or convention opposed to colloquial speech in discussion or debate
on any topic. Make your points however you like.