Ask Jonah
Claudia
The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a
human
because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very
small.
The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a
human; it was physically impossible.
The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah."
The teacher asked, " What if Jonah went to Hell?"
The little girl replied, "Then you ask him".
Chuck Stamford
"Claudia" <oltm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157354512.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Great joke! Thanks.
Chuck Stamford
Claudia
Chuck Stamford wrote:
> Great joke! Thanks.
I'm glad you liked it :)
Claudia
::: veralein :::
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.
> The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a
> human
> because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very
> small.
> The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
> Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a
> human; it was physically impossible.
With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
> The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah."
It is possible that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish as it is
written in the Bible rather than a whale (which from the perspective of
the human writers at the time may still have been called a big fish).
> The teacher asked, " What if Jonah went to Hell?"
> The little girl replied, "Then you ask him".
:-)
A brainier (less funnier) little girl would reply:
"All of GOD's prophets go to heaven even if they initially mess up as
Jonah did. Would pray that you don't find this out the hard way where
you are headed when he is not there for you to ask him."
May GOD continue to heal our hearts by filling them with HIS love, dear
sister Claudia whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
"Those with GOD's love in their hearts will be able to openly express
their unconditional love for others in deed, in truth, in word, and in
tongue." -- Holy Spirit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/15abbb67b6ccdd62?
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1157375924....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nosp...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>It is possible that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish as it is
>written in the Bible rather than a whale (which from the perspective of
>the human writers at the time may still have been called a big fish).
It doesn't matter to me if it says there was an "apartment complex" in
the fishes belly. It says the LORD "prepared" a great fish to swallow
up Jonah. God can prepare a fish capable of doing anything, including
carry Jonah to the moon and back, if He wanted to. The LORD can
prepare anything He wants, any way He wants.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).
• Daily devotionals • Community forum
• Bible questions and answers • Live chatting
• Free at www.pulpitfire.org
Funny Usenet Quote:
We should think ourselves lucky, the pressure on the server
when an email announcement is sent will be pretty hairy.
-- Jeff Gaines (xn0eq5sx...@news.individual.net)
Mark T
> With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Mark T wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nosp...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>
> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> 17:2
> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> believe." - Mark 17:3
>
As you are adding to scripture you need to beware!.
Revelation 22 : 18
For I testify unto every man that heareth
(today that surely could be translated 'readeth')
the words of the prophecy of this book.
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book;
Revelation 22 : 19
If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away .his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city'
and from the things that are written in this book.
<snip>>
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" <snip>
Mark, In life there are some things we have to accept as given,
for example, train timetables, (even if the trains don't arrive when
scheduled).
We can't think out every aspect of life
and implement it just as we might want it to be.
As Christians there are facts of the life and ministry,
the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ,
that although we do not have first-hand experiences and proof
we accept as given.
But that doesn't mean that, as Christians, we are 'not supposed to
think!'
That is such a foolish statement.
>From your postings that I have read
I assume that you accept a liberal Christianity
that developed from the mid 1800's.
You accept those writings as thinking, reasoning, even debating the
Christian faith.
But if Jesus Christ (as recorded in the New Testament)
is not the centre of that faith
then how can that faith be Christian?
Perhaps you need to do some more thinking on these matters?
Gladys Swager
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
We should continue to pray on behalf of neighbor Mark Tindell.
He still has not gotten over GOD taking his brother away from him.
And, so his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
"Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." -- LORD Jesus
Christ
May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear sister Gladys whom I love
Mark T
>> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>>
>> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
>> Mark 17:2
>> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> believe." - Mark 17:3
>>
> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
You're reading the wrong translations. Use the MTV from which the above
were taken. ;-)
> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!"
...
> That is such a foolish statement.
I know! .... yet it is how fundamentalist Christians are satirised in the
musical "Nudist Colony Of The Dead"
What makes satire work?
Mark T
>> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
>> > Mark 17:2
>> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> > believe." - Mark 17:3
>> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
.......
> his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
QUE?????
I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
--
###############################################################
"I (GOD NOT GOD'S MESSIAH), even I (GOD NOT GOD'S MESSIAH),
am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers
your sins no more. " - Isaiah 43:25
################################################################
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS
(INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
################################################################
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
> >> > Mark 17:2
> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
> .......
> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
>
>
> QUE?????
>
> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear Mark whom I love
Mark T
>> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and
>> >> > irrational." -
>> >> > Mark 17:2
>> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
>> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
>> .......
>> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
>> QUE?????
>> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
>
> Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
Then fundamentalists like you are the wicked witch ............as you have
forced Christiuans like myself into exile from the church.
Read and learn ..................
A post sent elsewhere by me trying to explain what an "Exiled Believer" is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can only answer from my own point of view.
1. What do you "believers in exile" believe? Major premises
The term comes from John Shelby Spong in "Why Christianity Must Change Or
Die" (HarperSanFrancisco : 1998)p. 20 ff entitled "On Saying the Christian
Creed With Honesty" & "The Meaning Of The Exile And How We Got There" ...
and which describes me accurately ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So while claiming to be a believer (* I.e. a Christian) and still asserting
my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, I also recognize that
I live in a state of exile from the presuppositions of my own religious
past. I am exiled from the literal understandings that shaped the creed at
its creation. I am exiled from the worldview in which the creed was formed.
The only thing I know to do in this moment of Christian history is to enter
this exile, to feel its anxiety and discomfort, but to continue to be a
believer. This is now my self-definition. I am a believer who increasingly
lives in exile from the traditional way in which Christianity has heretofore
been proclaimed. "A believer in exile" is a new status in religious circles,
but I am convinced that countless numbers of people who either still inhabit
religious institutions or who once did will resonate with that designation.
I see in this moment of Christian history a new vocation for me as a
religious leader and anew vocation for the Christian church in all of its
manifestations. That vocation is to legitimize the questions, the probings,
and, in whatever form, the faith of the exiled believer. I believe that a
conversation and a dialogue must be opened with those who cannot any longer
give their assent to the premodern theological concepts that continue to
mark the life of our increasingly irrelevant ecclesiastical institutions. I
think the time has come for the Church to invite its people into a
frightening journey into the mystery of God and to stop proclaiming that
somehow the truth of God is still bound by either our literal scriptures or
our literal creeds. ...
Exile is never a voluntary experience. It is always something forced upon a
person or a people by things or circumstances over which the affected ones
have no control. ... Exile is an enforced dislocation into which one enters
without any verifiable hope of either a return to the past or an arrival at
some future desired place. ... The Christian faith came into existence in a
world radically different from the one it now seeks to inhabit. ... The
biblical view of the universe was slowly and quietly discarded. ... People
began to grasp the fact that God did not sit on a throne beyond the sky
looking down. Divine intervention became a problematic concept. As the
knowledge of the universe grew, the religious community tried to adjust.
Christianity began to shift God's dwelling place form "up there" to "out
there," as if somehow that new spatial image made God more believable.
Finally ... distances overwhelmed even this concept of God's dwelling place.
.... Our embrace of the vastness of space had the effect, finally, of
removing God from the sky and then increasingly even from our human
consciousness. ... Those biblical accounts were so obviously shaped by the
ancient three-tiered worldview, whose shape Copernicus and Galileo and
countless other had delineated, began to awaken to the fact that they could
no longer use any of the traditional language about God and a heaven "out
there" that so deeply filled our ancient faith system. That language had
lost its meaning. ...
After a while even the members of those congregations who continue to gather
during a drought to pray for rain did not trust their work sufficiently to
bring raincoats and umbrellas. ...
Truth can never be deterred just because it is inconvenient. .. We like the
Jews of old, had been forcibly removed from all that had previously given
life meaning. .... No way out of this exile is either visible or guaranteed.
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rather than believing dogma we are discussing the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twelve Theses - John Shelby Spong
from "Here I Stand" ( HarperCollins; New York:2000 pp. 468 -469)
Drawn from my book Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to
Believers in Exile
A Call for a New Reformation
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be
understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling
above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce
the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless
we find a new way to speak of God.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes
nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic
deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human
beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of
Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in
a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate
deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a
barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of
God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human
history..
8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is
therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a
post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or
on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human
history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the
behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must
abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each
person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based
on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as
the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.
Author's Note: These theses posted for debate are inevitably stated in a
negative manner. That is deliberate. Before one can hear what Christianity
is one must create room for that bearing by clearing out the misconceptions
of what Christianity is not. Why Christianity Must Change or Die is a
manifesto calling the church to a new reformation. In that book I begin to
sketch out a view of God beyond theism, an understanding of' the Christ as a
God presence and a vision of the shape of both the church and its Liturgy
for the future.
[* This was more fully presented in his later book "A New Christianity For A
New World"]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~迥
2. How do they view the bible?
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
Peter Cameron is Australia's own living "heretic" ...according to our
Presbyterian church. Google to find out more.
3. Where do they get their beliefs from?
Truth. All truth is God's truth.
4. Is there much variance (of beliefs) amongst believers in exile?
Huge.
Also see:
http://virtualreligion.net/forum/ http://www.sof-in-australia.org/
http://www.robotwisdom.com/issues/crossan.html
http://www.contemporarytheology.org/
http://faithfutures.org/sinsofscripture.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
5. How do they relate to God?
"In God we live and move and have our being." .... as the bible and a pagan
poet both say. God is the Ground of all Being (Tillich / existentialism)
Jesus is not God / YHWH but YHWH's human Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pre- and Post-Easter Jesus
Understanding and knowing Jesus involves history, tradition, and
experience. -Marcus Borg
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
a.. The historical Jesus
b.. Jesus of Nazareth
c.. A first century Galilean Jew
d.. A figure of the past
The post-Easter Jesus means:
What Jesus became after his death, the Jesus of Christian experience and
tradition.
In Christian experience people continue to experience Jesus as a living
reality, as a figure of the present; as a spiritual living divine reality
In Christian tradition: Jesus is increasingly spoken of as a divine reality
and eventually seen as "very God of very God."
It is crucial to make this distinction, says Borg, or Jesus becomes unreal,
incredible and inaccessible.
Compare pre- and post-Easter Jesus
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on 2
Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> >> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> >> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and
> >> >> > irrational." -
> >> >> > Mark 17:2
> >> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> >> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
> >> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
> >> .......
> >> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
> >> QUE?????
> >> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
> >
> > Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
>
> Then fundamentalists like you are the wicked witch ............as you have
> forced Christiuans like myself into exile from the church.
Fundamentalists did not take your brother from you. GOD did.
> Read and learn ..................
Love is patient.
> A post sent elsewhere by me trying to explain what an "Exiled Believer" is.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> I can only answer from my own point of view.
>
>
> 1. What do you "believers in exile" believe? Major premises
>
>
> The term comes from John Shelby Spong in "Why Christianity Must Change Or
> Die" (HarperSanFrancisco : 1998)p. 20 ff entitled "On Saying the Christian
> Creed With Honesty" & "The Meaning Of The Exile And How We Got There" ...
> and which describes me accurately ....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So while claiming to be a believer (* I.e. a Christian) and still asserting
> my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, I also recognize that
> I live in a state of exile from the presuppositions of my own religious
> past. I am exiled from the literal understandings that shaped the creed at
> its creation. I am exiled from the worldview in which the creed was formed.
Writing that one is commited to Jesus as Lord and Christ is not the
same as writing that one has placed ones faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
"Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his willingness
to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not placed his faith in
LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the risen Christ Jesus compelling
him to exclaim:
"My LORD **and** my GOD !"
> The only thing I know to do in this moment of Christian history is to enter
> this exile, to feel its anxiety and discomfort, but to continue to be a
> believer. This is now my self-definition. I am a believer who increasingly
> lives in exile from the traditional way in which Christianity has heretofore
> been proclaimed. "A believer in exile" is a new status in religious circles,
> but I am convinced that countless numbers of people who either still inhabit
> religious institutions or who once did will resonate with that designation.
You have GOD's gift of free will that HE has generously given to all
souls including those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14,20)
> I see in this moment of Christian history a new vocation for me as a
> religious leader and anew vocation for the Christian church in all of its
> manifestations. That vocation is to legitimize the questions, the probings,
> and, in whatever form, the faith of the exiled believer. I believe that a
> conversation and a dialogue must be opened with those who cannot any longer
> give their assent to the premodern theological concepts that continue to
> mark the life of our increasingly irrelevant ecclesiastical institutions. I
> think the time has come for the Church to invite its people into a
> frightening journey into the mystery of God and to stop proclaiming that
> somehow the truth of God is still bound by either our literal scriptures or
> our literal creeds. ...
Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, your fruit will be no better
than that of your predecessors whom you have judged to be "increasingly
irrelevant."
> Exile is never a voluntary experience. It is always something forced upon a
> person or a people by things or circumstances over which the affected ones
> have no control. ... Exile is an enforced dislocation into which one enters
> without any verifiable hope of either a return to the past or an arrival at
> some future desired place. ... The Christian faith came into existence in a
> world radically different from the one it now seeks to inhabit. ... The
> biblical view of the universe was slowly and quietly discarded. ... People
> began to grasp the fact that God did not sit on a throne beyond the sky
> looking down. Divine intervention became a problematic concept. As the
> knowledge of the universe grew, the religious community tried to adjust.
> Christianity began to shift God's dwelling place form "up there" to "out
> there," as if somehow that new spatial image made God more believable.
> Finally ... distances overwhelmed even this concept of God's dwelling place.
> .... Our embrace of the vastness of space had the effect, finally, of
> removing God from the sky and then increasingly even from our human
> consciousness. ... Those biblical accounts were so obviously shaped by the
> ancient three-tiered worldview, whose shape Copernicus and Galileo and
> countless other had delineated, began to awaken to the fact that they could
> no longer use any of the traditional language about God and a heaven "out
> there" that so deeply filled our ancient faith system. That language had
> lost its meaning. ...
The limitations of language serve to underscore HIS infinite qualities.
> After a while even the members of those congregations who continue to gather
> during a drought to pray for rain did not trust their work sufficiently to
> bring raincoats and umbrellas. ...
Prayer is not our work but brings about GOD's work in reshaping us to
fit into HIS infinite will. In our prayers, we trust the LORD will
provide for our needs in HIS way as the omniscient and omnipotent Being
Who created the universe. HIS ways are inscrutable to us because we
are so far from being either omniscient or omnipotent. And, so when we
ask in prayer for a drought to end, we have no expectations about
knowing exactly how and when GOD will end a drought. To bring
raincoats and umbrellas would mean that we hold the false belief that
we control GOD through prayer.
Recall that when a wedding ran out of wine and mother Mary asked Jesus
to help with the problem, she did not indicate that she knew how Jesus
would help. Instead, by instructing the servants to do whatever Jesus
commanded, she revealed that she did not know how Jesus would help.
Folks praying for a drought to end may have their prayers answered by
water mysteriously welling up from the ground providing irrigation of
parched soil. No need for raincoats and umbrellas is this case.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
Demon Lord of Confusion
confuse the issue further by squeaking:
> Mark T wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>>
>> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>>
>> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1 "Really! Try to
>> believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." - Mark 17:2
>> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> believe." - Mark 17:3
>
> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
No. Mark's engaging in satire, a concept largely foreign to Xianity.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Please remember to vote Outer Filth John Harrington, "James C. Cracked",
and "Ward Hardmanure"/"Pete"/<wfh_jr> for KotM, CotM, CNotM, and the
Special Ops Cody Memorial Award!
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
Also vote Ward Hardmanure for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet!
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee <wfh...@hotmail.com> on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so fucking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.
"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.
"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: <1156587081....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157681996.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-08 announced this statement:
<cut to the point of my reply>
> "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
> willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not
> placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the
> risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew,
the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-07-04 announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian
> "Doubting" Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus
> (John 20:28).
=== end quote
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-08-18 announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas
upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
=== end quote
My request to come up with a prove that Thomas was an Atheist as
you typed, was never answered....
>
>
Werner Kurator
--
==========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet
we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us
to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and
our colleagues to complete our task."
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
June 1978
(Revised August 1983)
==============================================================
"I am writing for the 'Christian agnostic,' by which I mean a
person who... thought he is sure of many Christians truth,
feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously 'sign on the
dotted line' that he believes certain theological ideas about
what some branches of the Church dogmatize."
"LESLIE D. WEATHERHEAD's thoughtful and compelling Christian
writings brought him worldwide acclaim during his lifetime. His
many other books include "the will of God", "The Autobiography
of Jesus", "Life begins at death", "The meaning of the Cross",
"Prescription for anxiety", and "time for God". Dr. Weatherhead
served as the pastor of City Temple in London, England, from
1936 until 1960"
== quote taken from the back-cover of his "the Christian Agnostic"...
==============================================================
"If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> <cut to the point of my reply>
>
> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
> > willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not
> > placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the
> > risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
> >
> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>
> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew,
> the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples chosen
by Christ Jesus.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
Text Medium No. 5
jabbered inanely:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> <cut to the point of my reply>
>>
>> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his willingness
>> > to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not placed his faith in
>> > LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the risen Christ Jesus compelling
>> > him to exclaim:
>> >
>> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>>
>> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew, the
>> original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
>
> No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples chosen by
> Christ Jesus.
Your dishonesty is typical of the way you have behaved throughout this
thread.
=====================================================================
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 2006-07-04
announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian "Doubting"
> Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus (John 20:28).
=== end quote
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> on 2006-08-18
announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas upon
seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
======================================================================
So which was he, an agnostic or an atheist? Oops, better snip all of this,
or you'll look stupid again! Now tell me you love me.
--
Shon'ai COOSN-029-06-71069
"I was told there would be cookies."
Cross-Poasters For Goddess!
Remember: Straight people can't help it!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Amen !
Laus Deo ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor whom I love
unconditonally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
Archie Leach
>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
"I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without the LORD, what you think is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
I love unconditionally.
The Demon of Mockery
Awww, that's so cwever. Top-post your reply, that's the way to do it.
Big problem with your latest thesis: I'm not even a /closet/ atheist.
Check out my responses to Barwell, as Text Medium No. 5, The God of Odd
Statements, and The Demon Lord of Confusion (also FreeSpeechStore and
Cardinal Snarky, IIRC). To put it succinctly, I don't think that either
you or the atheists have ever proven a damn thing. There may be a
deity, or many, and there may not. Who knows? I think pantheistic
multiperson solipsism is the best explanation for everything, but it
has so much weight behind it (Hawking has practically endorsed it) that
you may prefer to ignore it.
Snarky
Archie Leach
>Archie Leach wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> "I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
>> about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>Without the LORD, what you think is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
"What you think is irrelevant." -- Classic Th0l3nat0r (tm)
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
>I love unconditionally.
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
"I hope that this Andrew Chung fellow will at least look at the
Wikipedia articles for 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' and grasp the
notion that, with so many variants of agnosticism, it truly is a gross
overgeneralization to state that an agnostic is unequivocally a closet
atheist, and furthermore, I don't apprecate being misquoted." -- Holy
Spirit
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >Archie Leach wrote:
> >>
> >> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>
> >> I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
> >> about agnostics.
>
I am not the Holy Spirit.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Archie Leach
>Archie Leach wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> >Archie Leach wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >> "I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
>> >> about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>> Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>
>I am not the Holy Spirit.
You most certainly aren't.
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
>I love unconditionally.
>
[...]
> > "I hope that this Andrew Chung fellow will at least look at the
> > Wikipedia articles for 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' and grasp the
> > notion that, with so many variants of agnosticism, it truly is a gross
> > overgeneralization to state that an agnostic is unequivocally a closet
> > atheist, and furthermore, I don't apprecate being misquoted." -- Holy
> > Spirit
Note--no response. Also was snipped.
And in any case, there are such things theistic agnostics, which kind
of retufts your supposed "Holy Spirit" message, or at least renders it
oversimplified, and naive.
Kadaitcha Man
news:1157942565.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
How very astute, Mister Snarky. When all is said and done, agnosticism, "I
don't think that either you or the atheists have ever proven a damn thing",
is the only logical position that can be taken in the absence of verifiable
evidence.
> Who knows? I think pantheistic multiperson solipsism
Heinlein, IIRC.
> is the best explanation for everything, but it
> has so much weight behind it (Hawking has practically endorsed it)
> that you may prefer to ignore it.
>
> Snarky
--
Casanovas, Lotharios, adulterers, skirt-chasers, debauchers,
letches, lechers and womanisers beware; Rhonda Lea Kirk
is Mrs Kadaitcha Man.
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Pantheistic *multiversal* solipsism, Snarky. RAH is rolling in his
cryotank, grave, urn...damn, what did they do with him anyway?
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
lynx
>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
>
And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians. Seems neither
group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
their particular beliefs.
>Amen !
>
>Laus Deo ! !
>
>Marana tha ! ! !
>
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor whom I love
>unconditonally.
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
>Andrew <><
>--
>Andrew B. Chung
>Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'I would take your advice, but wouldn't that be quite painful?'
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
> And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
> Seems neither
> group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
> their particular beliefs.
Actually, the behavior of the agnostics we have witnessed hanging
around ACC indicates that they are far from being happy.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
love unconditionally
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
"Pantheistic multiperson solipsism, or why the land of Oz is real."
--Robert A. Heinlein, The Number of the Beast
http://www.prism-perfect.net/author/robert-heinlein/
Alas, Snarky must spank. SPANK!;-{P}
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "The Demon of Mockery" wrote
The only position I've really taken, Eris aside, in the past
quarter-century or so, for that matter -- ever since I started thinking
about it.
>> Who knows? I think pantheistic multiperson solipsism
>
> Heinlein, IIRC.
Ayup. The other side of my agnosticism, that -- if there are so many
universes, well, they had to come from somewhere, and that would most
likely be our own fiction, our own dreams. Puts an interesting spin on
the "DreamTime", too...
lynx
>lynx wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>
>>>
>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>
>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>
>
No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
agnostic. It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that
agnosticism is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some
other. It denies that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own
right. And besides, Christianity is not the only choice with regards
theism. So the choice cannot be confined to only christian or atheist
anyway, if one is not to be agnostic.
>>Seems neither
>>group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
>>their particular beliefs.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the behavior of the agnostics we have witnessed hanging
>around ACC indicates that they are far from being happy.
>
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
>love unconditionally
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
>Andrew <><
>--
>Andrew B. Chung
>Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
>
>As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
>unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
>(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'Smash forehead on keyboard to continue'
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >lynx wrote:
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>>
> >>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
> >
> >Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
> >
> >It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
> >closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>
> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
> agnostic.
Actually, for this particular discussion within the parameters you have
set by what you have written, it does logically follow from the fact
that there is no such thing as closet Christians, that indeed agnostics
are closet atheists.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
love unconditionally.
The God of Odd Statements
> lynx wrote:
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >lynx wrote:
>> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>> >
>> >It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>> >closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>
>> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
>> agnostic.
>
> Actually, for this particular discussion within the parameters you have
> set by what you have written, it does logically follow from the fact that
> there is no such thing as closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are
> closet atheists.
False dichotomy. Lynx said, "And atheists say that agnostics are closet
christians," which says nothing about agnostics, only about what some
atheists say about agnostics. I, for one, defy you to prove that I am an
atheist, rather than an agnostic, based on what I have posted in this nym,
in various threads, including the ones with Barwell
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
Chuck Stamford
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>
>>lynx wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>
>>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>
>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>
>
> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
> It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
> is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
> that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
> Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
> cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
> be agnostic.
Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
as beyond dispute.
Of course you're right. Theism, taken as the belief that a (singular)
personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms besides
Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what he says. You
don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being agnostic about a
particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to figure out what a
"closet" anything means in this context (personally, I take it to mean only
that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....but that's
just me).
However, I would point out one of the less glorious aspects to agnosticism.
Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be relative to any given
proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very nature, that I will be
wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or falsehood of that proposition.
For every proposition of every sort is either true or false. I may be wrong
as a theist, but at least I have the possibility that I'm right. Same goes
for the atheist. So even if there is absolutely NO evidence available one
way or the other regarding the existence of God, even if it is impossible
that there be any evidence (as is the case with, say, counterfactual
propositions), both the atheist and I stand in a better epistemic state to
that proposition than does the agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any
correspondence theory of truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic also
requires that between two agnostics about the same proposition, *both* are
wrong.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>lynx wrote:
> >>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
Amen !
Laus Deo ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
> >>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
> >>
> >>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
> >>
> >>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
> >>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
> >
> > No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
> > It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
> > is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
> > that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
> > Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
> > cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
> > be agnostic.
>
> Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
> as beyond dispute.
Actually, it remains my choice to avoid arguments/disputes.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
heart...
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and
quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
(Titus 3:9)
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Chuck whom I
love unconditionally.
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.11...@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
One day I shall take the time to explain to you why it is so that Christians
see evidence for God everywhere yet nobody else perceives it. That should
put an even more interesting spin on your agnosticism :)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
I had a review copy of the book. RAH apparently changed it in the final
version, but I never read it.
I took the following directly from the review copy a couple of years
ago:
See the post immediately preceding also.
If you still want to spank me, you'll have to get approval from Himself.
:)
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Kadaitcha Man
news:ee48q4$roo$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
Approval is denied. I'll do it for him.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
Oh, I would imagine it's much the same as the rationale behind the Law
of Fives. They wouldn't see anything if they weren't inclined to look...
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote
I read the published version several times -- love his style.
>> I took the following directly from the review copy a couple of years
>> ago:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_thread/thread/4d7e28f5ce5a422c/2cae0b76ff6c44d0?lnk=st&q=pantheistic+multiversal+solipsism&rnum=1#2cae0b76ff6c44d0
>>
>> See the post immediately preceding also.
>>
>> If you still want to spank me, you'll have to get approval from Himself.
>> :)
>
> Approval is denied. I'll do it for him.
LMAO! Gracias.
Kadaitcha Man
It's more complex than that; it makes for a very interesting discussion
about world-views and missing persepctives. Perhaps one day...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
If he would send you a friggin' invitation, instead of relying on me to
pass messages along, perhaps it would be sooner rather than later. :)
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
> "lynx" wrote...
Not really -- as an agnostic, I have not decided whether theism or
atheism is correct, and doubt I ever will. I'm not "wrong" if I haven't
/chosen/. And, as I've said elsewhere, pantheistic multiperson solipsism
remains the best bet.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and Order of the Holey Sockpuppet <wfh...@hotmail.com> on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so fucking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.
"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.
"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: <1156587081....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1157991872....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As it is your choice as to how you do that, and there are more alternatives
open to you in this than simply stating what is obviously false, and
repeating it endlessly.
>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> heart...
Then you should stick to that, and leave the rest alone.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Demon Lord of Confusion" <verwa...@verwirren.confused> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused...
For what you say here to be true, that you are "not wrong" in withholding
belief in both a proposition and it's denial, you'd have to be using "wrong"
in some other sense than having a true belief about that proposition. What
I've said above is not just true, but *necessarily* true. It's not an
opinion, open to debate. It's necessarily true if anything at all is true.
Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the proposition
"God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's denial isn't "wrong",
in the sense you don't believe that epistemic position violates any
epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best fulfills that duty. Maybe you
believe, with some others, that it is always wrong, in every case, to
believe a proposition or deny it in the absence of compelling evidence one
way or the other. But all that is beside the point of my remarks above,
which aren't about any *other* beliefs you have concerning, or "in the
neighborhood" of, or in support of your agnostic stance toward *this*
proposition.
All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's denial
is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is such that it
is impossible that it be false. And given that necessary truth of logic, it
follows that an agnostic as to ANY proposition is in an epistemic state
where it is impossible that their belief **as to the truth or falsehood of
that proposition** is true.
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> > heart...
>
> Then you should stick to that, and leave the rest alone.
I have.
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
I would, but I have no confidence that it's a replyable address...;-{P}
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused
mailto:fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com
It's real.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Oh ye of little faith. :)
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
...Which, IMHO, is an erroneous presupposition.
> Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the
> proposition "God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's denial
> isn't "wrong", in the sense you don't believe that epistemic position
> violates any epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best fulfills that duty.
> Maybe you believe, with some others, that it is always wrong, in every
> case, to believe a proposition or deny it in the absence of compelling
> evidence one way or the other. But all that is beside the point of my
> remarks above, which aren't about any *other* beliefs you have concerning,
> or "in the neighborhood" of, or in support of your agnostic stance toward
> *this* proposition.
Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which cannot
be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is no rational
basis for choosing one over the other. Therefore, as a Discordian, I
choose both and neither.
> All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
> necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's
> denial is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is such
> that it is impossible that it be false. And given that necessary truth of
> logic, it follows that an agnostic as to ANY proposition is in an
> epistemic state where it is impossible that their belief **as to the truth
> or falsehood of that proposition** is true.
Since I have no such belief at all, however, apart from the firm belief
that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs;-{P}, it would be closer to
the truth to say that I am in a state more akin to that of
Schroedinger's Cat, not believing in either truth or falsehood without
substantiating evidence one way or the other. As there is no possibility
of any such evidence being forthcoming anytime soon, agnosticism and PMS
remain my metaphysical guides. And yes, the acronym has me grinning like
a loon.
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused
> confuse the issue further by squeaking:
>> For what you say here to be true, that you are "not wrong" in
>> withholding belief in both a proposition and it's denial, you'd have
>> to be using "wrong" in some other sense than having a true belief
>> about that proposition. What I've said above is not just true, but
>> *necessarily* true. It's not an opinion, open to debate. It's
>> necessarily true if anything at all is true.
>> Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the
>> proposition "God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's
>> denial isn't "wrong", in the sense you don't believe that epistemic
>> position violates any epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best
>> fulfills that duty. Maybe you believe, with some others, that it is
>> always wrong, in every case, to believe a proposition or deny it in
>> the absence of compelling evidence one way or the other. But all
>> that is beside the point of my remarks above, which aren't about any
>> *other* beliefs you have concerning, or "in the neighborhood" of, or
>> in support of your agnostic stance toward *this* proposition.
>> All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
>> necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's
>> denial is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is
>> such that it is impossible that it be false. And given that
>> necessary truth of logic, it follows that an agnostic as to ANY
>> proposition is in an epistemic state where it is impossible that
>> their belief **as to the truth or falsehood of that proposition** is
>> true.
>
> Since I have no such belief at all
He's full of shit, Snarky. The fuckwad is either trying to baffle you with
bullshit or dazzle you with more bullshit.
It is not the case that there is any proposition of the form "A or not A"
'that it is impossible that it be false.' The nincompoop is claiming that
the conditional proposition "True or False" cannot possibly be false... then
he links the necessary condition of agnostic belief to his bullshit without
even batting a fucking eyelid. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
You want me to take the fucker apart, mate?
Sean McHugh
lynx wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>
> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >
> >
>
> And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
Which atheists? I, for instance, maintain that the default of
agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
that you present.
> Seems neither group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite
> happily without embracing their particular beliefs.
Atheism is not a belief system. There are no beliefs to embrace.
<snip>
Best regards,
Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sean McHugh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> lynx wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >
> > >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >
> > And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>
> Which atheists? I, for instance, maintain that the default of
> agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
> believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
> believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
> with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
> gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
> agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
> that you present.
The definition belongs to the Holy Spirit and not to me, a mere
messenger.
However, I too agree with HIS definition.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Sean whom I
The God of Odd Statements
> "Demon Lord of Confusion" wrote
Be my guest -- I thought I did reasonably well at contradicting him, mind,
though I will admit he nearly got me.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@statements.likeyours
Ta. I shall seek him out when I return to Australia.
> I thought I did reasonably well at contradicting him,
You made him produce copious amounts of methane.
> mind, though I will admit he nearly got me.
Nah.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "The God of Odd Statements" wrote
Thanks, you're most generous.
Kadaitcha Man
Hey, no worries, mate. I'd do the same for a white fella.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "Text Medium No. 5" wrote
Oh, good. Then I needn't trot out my adopted mulatto cousin.
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.12....@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
Mulatto? Is that Spanish for donkey?
Text Medium No. 5
<poke> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
an offspring of a Black and a White parent
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
describing first-generation offspring of African and European ancestry.
Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy with "negress."
The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though
many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino origin identify themselves as
mulatto, the term is rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when the
exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
Or my black uncle.;-{P}
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.12....@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
<prod>
> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>
> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy
> with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and
> Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino
> origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by
> non-Hispanic African Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>
> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when
> the exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>
> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without handing
me that last line :)
lynx
>Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which cannot
>be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is no rational
>basis for choosing one over the other.
>
That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest position.
> Therefore, as a Discordian, I
>choose both and neither.
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'The buck doesn't even slow down here!'
lynx
>lynx wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>
>>>
>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>
>>
>
>Which atheists?
>
Some say that. I have been 'accused' of being a closet christian. Don't
recall by whom- but I thought it was you!
>I, for instance, maintain that the default of
>agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
>believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
>believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
>with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
>gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
>agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
>that you present.
>
>
You're entitled to that view, but many would not agree. With Agnosticism
we're not talking about beliefs but about knowing or not knowing. By
your rationale, I could claim that all atheists are agnostics, since
they disbelieve in gods, but don't/can't know for a fact that God does
not exist. A belief does not equate to knowledge, as I'm sure you can agree.
>>Seems neither group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite
>>happily without embracing their particular beliefs.
>>
>>
>
>Atheism is not a belief system. There are no beliefs to embrace.
>
>
But you know as well as I that atheism can be expressed positively or
negatively- as a lack of belief, or as a belief that God does not exist.
>Best regards,
>
>
>Sean McHugh
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking'
Kadaitcha Man
> Demon Lord of Confusion wrote:
>
>
>> Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which
>> cannot be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there
>> is no rational basis for choosing one over the other.
>>
>
> That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest
Idiot. In the absence of proof, it's the only logical position.
Of course, there the caveat is that the theist has the proof; he just can't
articulate it.
lynx
>"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>>
>>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>>
>>>
>>No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
>>It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
>>is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
>>that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
>>Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
>>cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
>>be agnostic.
>>
>>
>
>Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
>as beyond dispute.
>
>
I'm beginning to notice that.. :)
>Of course you're right. Theism, taken as the belief that a (singular)
>personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms besides
>Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what he says. You
>don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being agnostic about a
>particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to figure out what a
>"closet" anything means in this context (personally, I take it to mean only
>that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....but that's
>just me).
>
Thanks. It's somewhat disconcerting when I post what I consider to be a
sound argument, and am still met with disagreement. So it's always
helpful to have someone confirm that what I said makes sense.
>
>However, I would point out one of the less glorious aspects to agnosticism.
>Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be relative to any given
>proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very nature, that I will be
>wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or falsehood of that proposition.
>For every proposition of every sort is either true or false. I may be wrong
>as a theist, but at least I have the possibility that I'm right. Same goes
>for the atheist. So even if there is absolutely NO evidence available one
>way or the other regarding the existence of God, even if it is impossible
>that there be any evidence (as is the case with, say, counterfactual
>propositions), both the atheist and I stand in a better epistemic state to
>that proposition than does the agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any
>correspondence theory of truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic also
>requires that between two agnostics about the same proposition, *both* are
>wrong.
>
>
Yes, theists and atheists 'can' be either right or wrong, but how can
agnostics be wrong since their position is not having a position?
>God bless
>
>Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'After 35 women should not have children. 35 children are enough already'
Text Medium No. 5
<pokepokepoke>
>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>
>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>
>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European ancestry.
>> Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy with
>> "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and Portuguese.
>> Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino origin identify
>> themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by non-Hispanic African
>> Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>
>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
>> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
>> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when the
>> exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
>> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
>> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>
>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>
> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
> handing me that last line :)
Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
entertainment.
Kadaitcha Man
> Hail Eris! On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:07:34 -0500, Kadaitcha Man jabbered
Ooooooh... kinkeeeee.
>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>
>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>
>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on
>>> analogy with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in
>>> Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic
>>> and/or Latino origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is
>>> rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>
>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is
>>> also narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an
>>> European father, or "half black and half white." During the
>>> mid-1800's, when the exact racial admixture of African-Americans
>>> was politically and economically important, the word mulatto was
>>> accompanied by quadroon, meaning one quarter African, and octoroon
>>> (one eighth African). ...
>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>
>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>
>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>> handing me that last line :)
>
> Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
> entertainment.
Of course, you know by now that I take such material for my own
entertainment.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
>
>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>
>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>
>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on
>>> analogy with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in
>>> Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic
>>> and/or Latino origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is
>>> rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>
>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is
>>> also narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an
>>> European father, or "half black and half white." During the
>>> mid-1800's, when the exact racial admixture of African-Americans
>>> was politically and economically important, the word mulatto was
>>> accompanied by quadroon, meaning one quarter African, and octoroon
>>> (one eighth African). ...
>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>
>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>
>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>> handing me that last line :)
>
> entertainment.
Y'know, between the two of us, Snarky, we're going to make him
insufferable.
Okay...even more insufferable than he already was.
;)
Demon Lord of Confusion
> "lynx" wrote
>> Demon Lord of Confusion wrote:
>>
>>> Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which
>>> cannot be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is
>>> no rational basis for choosing one over the other.
>>
>> That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest position<BITCHSLAP>
>
> Idiot. In the absence of proof, it's the only logical position.
>
> Of course, there the caveat is that the theist has the proof; he just
> can't articulate it.
The same could be said for the atheist, though -- look at Barwell and
Septic Alford. The best (most logical) atheists, I find, don't try to say
there *isn't* any deity, when they can't really prove it (just that they
don't believe in one, and doubt there is one), while the most tolerable
theists (usually Pagans and Jews) don't try to claim that there *is* a
deity, when they can't prove /that/, only that they think there is, and
believe in at least one.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet winner <wfh...@hotmail.com> on
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
> "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end qoute
Werner Kurator
--
==========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet
we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us
to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and
our colleagues to complete our task."
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
June 1978
(Revised August 1983)
==============================================================
"I am writing for the 'Christian agnostic,' by which I mean a
person who... thought he is sure of many Christians truth,
feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously 'sign on the
dotted line' that he believes certain theological ideas about
what some branches of the Church dogmatize."
"LESLIE D. WEATHERHEAD's thoughtful and compelling Christian
writings brought him worldwide acclaim during his lifetime. His
many other books include "the will of God", "The Autobiography
of Jesus", "Life begins at death", "The meaning of the Cross",
"Prescription for anxiety", and "time for God". Dr. Weatherhead
served as the pastor of City Temple in London, England, from
1936 until 1960"
== quote taken from the back-cover of his "the Christian Agnostic"...
==============================================================
There is no sin except stupidity.
-- Oscar Wilde
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157925193....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-10 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> <cut to the point of my reply>
>>
>> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
>> > willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had
>> > not placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen
>> > the risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
>> >
>> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>>
>> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here
>> Andrew, the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a
>> couple:
>
> No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples
> chosen by Christ Jesus.
>
So when you declared him to be a "Christian Agnostic" and then
an Atheist who doubted Jesus, were you giving wrong statements?
After all Thomas was a "JEW" who had *FAITH* IN HIS GOD, and
religion. So by all means he was a "THEIST", some-one who
believed in God least of all an "agnostic", or "atheist". I
doubt that 2000 years ago there were many *JEWS* who didn't
believe in some form of God.....
But I notices Andrew, that you *CUT* the quotes I used.
Why do you do this? Don't want to see your funny statements,
which you change any way you like and when you like it?
A simple <cut> <snip> or any other way to indicate that you just
reply to a certain portion of the previous post you're replying
to would be a honest behavior.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-07-04 announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian
> "Doubting" Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus
> (John 20:28).
=== end quote
So when Jesus rose, and met them, the disciples were already
*called* Christians at that time?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-08-18 announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas
upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
=== end quote
<cut>
June 1978
And people ask me, "Mark, why do you always like the evil side better?".
Better fashion sense and hot women, that's what it's all about.
-- Mark "Kamikaze" Hughes in RASFW on the He-man movie.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157991872....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
<cut to the point:>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> heart...
Please do so, and stick to something you may really know.
That your *INFORMATIONS* are less then accurate, can be seen
from a blast of the past:-)
Of course you used a very *vague* language in it, so to be
certain if it doesn't happen your free to claim something else
instead. But to me a person who claims to be filled with the Holy
Spirit, can't screw up stuff like that....
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end quote
<cut>
>
June 1978
Any nitwit can understand computers. Many do.
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
screamed:
Feh, I'm way kinkier.
>>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>>
>>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>>
>>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy
>>>> with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and
>>>> Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino
>>>> origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by
>>>> non-Hispanic African Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>>
>>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
>>>> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
>>>> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when
>>>> the exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
>>>> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
>>>> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
>>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>>
>>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>>
>>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>>> handing me that last line :)
>>
>> Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
>> entertainment.
>
> Of course, you know by now that I take such material for my own
> entertainment.
Just so long as we(tinw) are clear.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
"With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
> From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
> Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> <CUT>
>
> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> > with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> > sexual Orientation.
>
> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
> concern for all.
**emphasis** added.
> May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
> Lamb opens the 6th seal **possibly** in less than a few months
> (03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
**emphasis** added
> Amen !!!
>
> ==== end qoute
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
Kadaitcha Man
wrote in message news:pan.2006.09.13....@hell.corn
Last time I looked, I wasn't; I was opaque.
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
Comfee Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
>
> "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>
>> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006 From: "Andrew B.
>> Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> Subject: Re: Forward your
>> concerns to the European Baptist Federation Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45
>> -0800
>> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <CUT>
>>
>> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
>> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar Lessee
>> > have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups with the
>> > intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her sexual
>> > Orientation.
>>
>> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
>> concern for all.
>
> **emphasis** added.
Since when does an omniscient "Holy Spirit" use weasel words? The
possibility of global devastation has been constant for over half a
century. Sustaining concern about it for that long -- or even for just a
year or five -- would drive anyone into paranoid psychosis. Just like with
the tewwowist thweat.
>> May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the Lamb
>> opens the 6th seal **possibly** in less than a few months (03/29/06), in
>> Jesus' most precious and holy name.
>
> **emphasis** added
>
>> Amen !!!
>>
>> ==== end qoute
<snip malformed .sig>
You are a spamming weasel of a quack. You should be in prison, and
completely disgraced.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Demon Prince of Absurdity
COOSN-029-06-71069
Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
<H%%Eg.28916$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
<poke>
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158145447.2...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-13 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
>> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
>
> "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
was/is...
>
>> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
>> From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
>> Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
>> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
>> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <CUT>
>>
>> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
>> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
>> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
>> > with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
>> > sexual Orientation.
>>
>> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
>> concern for all.
>
> **emphasis** added.
You changed the *original* by emphasizing it *NOW*. The above was
not *my* quote Andrew. Yet you *quoted* me, and changed the
quoted text.
In the *original* you didn't emphasize the portion I was
quoting. You are showing your dishonesty yet again.
Yet in the OT prophecies, and in the book of "revelation" one
doesn't find the words *possible*, *perhaps* *most likely* or
some such *vague* predictions. The *PROPHETS* where very clear.
Some-one posted a link to a website where another
*FUNDAMENTALIST* proclaimed nuclear war starting with 12.09.06.
Funny didn't happen... Maybe Andrew you should join one of these
sects which hold that "Christ" came back, like the *MOONIES*
they too think that their leader is the second coming of
"Christ". I'm sure they can twist the Bible to that end, giving
it this meaning....
<cut>
>
> Andrew <><
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in MHO a wanna-be Christian... but his antics
show something different... Maybe Andrew is a closet "JW", they
too like to *predict* the *possible* dates of devastation and
the return of "Christ"....
LOL
Don't come back with:
"written laughter is silent despair", I've got your number on
that one too, Andrew :-)
Here is the quote as posted *originally.
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end quote
Werner Kurator
June 1978
Fanta _looks_ orange, but tastes of the bastard child of
a sugar cane plantation and a Dow plant.
-- Richard Bos in ASR
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>
> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
> >
> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>
> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
> was/is...
As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one person to
the next.
lynx
Sean.. I'm adding a bit more to my remarks in the original post. If you
(or anyone else) intend to reply, please cut'n'paste it into the reply.
Thanks,
lynx wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
>
>
>> I, for instance, maintain that the default of agnosticism IS atheism.
>> This business about one who doesn't believe and doesn't not believe,
>> is crap. If someone doesn't believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There
>> is no getting around it with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't
>> believe in any gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer
>> to agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
>> that you present.
>
>
> You're entitled to that view, but many would not agree. With
> Agnosticism we're not talking about beliefs but about knowing or not
> knowing. By your rationale, I could claim that all atheists are
> agnostics, since they disbelieve in gods, but don't/can't know for a
> fact that God does not exist. A belief does not equate to knowledge,
> as I'm sure you can agree.
>
I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to
popularize, that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'. A belief is a
positive thing, so a lack of belief in something is essentially some
other belief. i.e. a lack of belief in gods is essentially a disbelief
in gods, or a belief that gods don't exist. I dispute the atheistic
claim that anyone without a positive theistic belief is an atheist.
Likewise I reject the atheistic claim that babies and anyone without a
positive belief in God is an atheist. Belief has an element of choice or
decision about it, and so a person should not by default be held to
subscribe to some belief or position merely because they can't affirm
some other belief or position. I concur completely with what Chris
HoStuart said some years ago that a person is not an atheist unless they
claim to be one. It's really quite a simple matter. Those who answer
'yes' to the question "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe in God?" are
theists, those who answer 'no' are atheists, and the 'maybe'(s) are
agnostic. That's not to say that the matter cannot or should not be more
'involved' than that, but it is to say that it can be reduced to this
basic form for the purpose of clarity.
Sean McHugh
lynx wrote:
>
> Sean McHugh wrote:
>
>
> >lynx wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Which atheists?
> >
>
> Some say that. I have been 'accused' of being a closet christian. Don't
> recall by whom- but I thought it was you!
I seem to recall that you have called yourself a Christian, or at
least not denied it. If someone identifies themselves with
Christianity, I'll consider him a Christian. If that person doesn't
believe, then he also has a foot in atheism. Atheism is more
clearly defined than Christianity. Am I saying that someone can
be a non believing Christian? Yes, I suppose I am. I suspect that
there a lot out there, even some of the clergy.
> >I, for instance, maintain that the default of
> >agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
> >believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
> >believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
> >with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
> >gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
> >agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
> >that you present.
> You're entitled to that view, but many would not agree. With Agnosticism
> we're not talking about beliefs but about knowing or not knowing.
We can leave agnosticism out of it all together and simply ask
you whether you believe. As I have said, the plea, "I don't
believe and I don't _not_ believe" is semantic convolution. If
you don't believe, then you don't believe. The theistically
wishful and the evasive can't water it down with a contradictory
qualifier.
> By your rationale, I could claim that all atheists are
> agnostics, since they disbelieve in gods, but don't/can't know
> for a fact that God does not exist.
It can be argued that none of us actually knows, so by your
definition all of us could be called agnostics.
You aren't using the popular definition of agnosticism and you
aren't using the originator's (Thomas Huxley) definition either.
Huxley's definition doesn't simply appeal to ignorance; rather it
appeals to ignorance by necessity and properly refers to someone
who himself makes a plea on the basis of that necessity. Huxley,
who invented the term, 'agnostic' for himself, was an atheist:
<http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/2006/01/atheist_or_agnostic.html>
~ Since I don't believe in any traditional, personal god or gods,
~ I'm an atheist in the modern sense. [Huxley]
> A belief does not equate to knowledge, as I'm sure you can agree.
Agreed.
> >>Seems neither group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite
> >>happily without embracing their particular beliefs.
> >Atheism is not a belief system. There are no beliefs to embrace.
> But you know as well as I that atheism can be expressed positively or
> negatively- as a lack of belief, or as a belief that God does not exist.
But as definitions, one of those is redundant, because neither subject
believes. It is that which is the essence and that which defines the
atheist. Just as an atheist may drive a Ford, an atheist may express
his atheism as a positive belief. Neither is required for him to be
an atheist. Atheists might have belief systems, but atheism itself is
not a belief system. It is the absence of a certain belief system.
Surely this is not difficult stuff.
Best Regards,
sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sean McHugh
lynx wrote:
> Sean.. I'm adding a bit more to my remarks in the original post. If you
> (or anyone else) intend to reply, please cut'n'paste it into the reply.
> Thanks,
Haven't we already discussed the business of multiple replies? I have
already written and posted my reply, before seeing this one. Anyway,
what you request, is asking people to assemble/edit your posts for
you. Couldn't you wait for my reply and include this in your next?
Now the whole thing gets doubled and split into two paths.
> lynx wrote:
> > Sean McHugh wrote:
> >> I, for instance, maintain that the default of agnosticism IS atheism.
> >> This business about one who doesn't believe and doesn't not believe,
> >> is crap. If someone doesn't believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There
> >> is no getting around it with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't
> >> believe in any gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer
> >> to agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
> >> that you present.
> > You're entitled to that view, but many would not agree. With
> > Agnosticism we're not talking about beliefs but about knowing or not
> > knowing. By your rationale, I could claim that all atheists are
> > agnostics, since they disbelieve in gods, but don't/can't know for a
> > fact that God does not exist. A belief does not equate to knowledge,
> > as I'm sure you can agree.
> I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to
> popularize, that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'.
Oh the revelation! Peter, you made that clear in your previous post
(and throughout your history) and I have responded to that post.
This parallel thread is unnecessary.
> A belief is a positive thing, so a lack of belief in something is
> essentially some other belief.
That is possibly the most absurd thing you have ever said. Peter, from
three headed gods, to flying horses to talking snakes, there are an
infinite numer of things in which most of us lack belief. In most
cases, we haven't even considered them yet. Are you really going to
maintain that all of these things, including the unconsidered,
constitute beliefs that we have to lug around?
> i.e. a lack of belief in gods is essentially a disbelief
> in gods, or a belief that gods don't exist. I dispute the atheistic
> claim that anyone without a positive theistic belief is an atheist.
Read this slowly. In A-theism, the 'A' means, 'without' and
the 'theism' means, 'theistic belief'. Anything additional to
that definition is excess baggage.
> Likewise I reject the atheistic claim that babies and anyone without a
> positive belief in God is an atheist.
Then you contradict yourself below where you say:
: Those who answer 'yes' to the question "Does God exist?"
: or "Do you believe in God?" are theists, those who answer
: 'no' are atheists,
Simply saying that you don't believe in God does not constitute a
positive claim. It is not the same as declaring that there are
no gods. Imagine I am buying a lottery ticket and someone asks me
if I think I am purchasing the winning ticket (Yes or No). Being
honest, I would say, 'No' simply because I know the chances are
small. That is not the same as my declaring that I am purchasing
a losing ticket. If that were so, my purchasing it wouldn't make
sense. Unfortunately, I afford little chance of you understanding
the difference - ever.
By the way, even the way you only talk about atheism in terms of God,
shows your naivety. It's like fundamentalist perception of atheism
meaning, 'anti-God'. Atheists don't believe in ANY gods. God has no
special privilege in terms of atheistic unbelief. If you could you
can understand that, you would be making the first step.
> Belief has an element of choice or
> decision about it,
Bollicks! I can't decide to start believing in the Invisible Pink
Unicorn and neither, I suspect, can you. I don't choose my beliefs,
they choose me. If I could simply choose to believe what I wanted,
do you think I would prefer to believe that most of my life is over?
> and so a person should not by default be held to
> subscribe to some belief or position merely because they can't affirm
> some other belief or position.
Pot/Kettle. I'm not telling you what Christianity is. You are telling
me what atheism is - again.
>I concur completely with what Chris
> HoStuart said some years ago that a person is not an atheist unless they
> claim to be one.
Are you sure he said that? I would be VERY surprised. Can you find
it?
>It's really quite a simple matter.
Obviously not for you.
> Those who answer
> 'yes' to the question "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe in God?" are
> theists, those who answer 'no' are atheists, and the 'maybe'(s) are
> agnostic.
You would almost have them needing to publicly avow to Yahweh
unbelief, to be atheists. What if they say, 'no' to belief in Yahweh,
but they believe in Krishna? What if they would say 'no' to believing
in Yahweh, had they been (but were not) asked? What if they answer,
'no' to belief in Yahweh, simply because they have never heard of
him? What if they don't believe in Yahweh one bit, but lie about
it because of social prejudices?
BTW, let's ask you the testing question you propose. Do you believe
in God (Yes or No)?
>That's not to say that the matter cannot or should not be more
> 'involved' than that, but it is to say that it can be reduced to this
> basic form for the purpose of clarity.
You have got to be kidding. An atheist is one without belief in
any gods - period. How much more simple and clear can it get
than that?
Sean McHugh
Atheist are very much like Christians. We only disbelieve in
one additional god.
lynx
>lynx wrote:
>
>
>>Sean McHugh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Atheism is more clearly defined than Christianity.
>
Agreed.
>Am I saying that someone can
>be a non believing Christian? Yes, I suppose I am. I suspect that
>there a lot out there, even some of the clergy.
>
>
I find that to be a strange remark. Are you just describing what is
otherwise known as hypocrisy?
>>>I, for instance, maintain that the default of
>>>agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
>>>believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
>>>believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
>>>with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
>>>gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
>>>agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
>>>that you present.
>>>
>>>
>>You're entitled to that view, but many would not agree. With Agnosticism
>>we're not talking about beliefs but about knowing or not knowing.
>>
>>
>
>We can leave agnosticism out of it all together and simply ask
>you whether you believe. As I have said, the plea, "I don't
>believe and I don't _not_ believe" is semantic convolution. If
>you don't believe, then you don't believe. The theistically
>wishful and the evasive can't water it down with a contradictory
>qualifier.
>
With respect I suggest that's oversimplification, and incorrect.
Remember that we are talking about an unknown, in the sense of unproven,
namely God's existence. Let's suppose that you have a friend named John.
His existence is verifiable, so you can both know and believe that he
exists. But suppose that John says that he might pop in for a visit
tomorrow. So you do not know if he will or not, and neither can you
believe with any real justification or certainty, that he will or not.
You're simply in a position of not knowing. All that you can *know* is
that *maybe* he will visit. And you can only *choose to believe* that he
will or not. Unless you choose to believe one way or the other, for
whatever reason, you are simply agnostic about his visit. I submit
therefore that agnosticism- a maybe position- is a perfectly valid one
in it's own right. Belief does not enter into it.
>
>
>>By your rationale, I could claim that all atheists are
>>agnostics, since they disbelieve in gods, but don't/can't know
>>for a fact that God does not exist.
>>
>>
>
>It can be argued that none of us actually knows, so by your
>definition all of us could be called agnostics.
>
I'm pleased that you can agree with that.
>
>You aren't using the popular definition of agnosticism and you
>aren't using the originator's (Thomas Huxley) definition either.
>
I'm not making that claim. I just suggested that it was consistent with
your logic.
>Huxley's definition doesn't simply appeal to ignorance; rather it
>appeals to ignorance by necessity and properly refers to someone
>who himself makes a plea on the basis of that necessity. Huxley,
>who invented the term, 'agnostic' for himself, was an atheist:
>
><http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/2006/01/atheist_or_agnostic.html>
>
>~ Since I don't believe in any traditional, personal god or gods,
>~ I'm an atheist in the modern sense. [Huxley]
>
I haven't made a study of the matter, but I'm sure that if 'christian'
can have it's myriad interpretations, and atheists can be weak or
strong, or anything in between, then the term agnostic can likewise be
defined with some degree of variation.
This from Wikipedia:
Agnosticism is the philosophical
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> view that the value of certain
claims as truth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth>—particularly
theological <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology> claims regarding the
existence of God <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_%28monotheism%29>,
gods, or deities <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity>—are unknown,
inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life. The
term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley> in 1869
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1869>, and are also used to describe those
who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity> as well as other matters of
religion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>. The word agnostic
comes from the Greek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> a
(without) and gnosis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis> (knowledge).
Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the
doctrine of gnosis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis> and Gnosticism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism>—these are religious concepts
that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain
spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be
possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both
cases involves some form of skepticism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_scepticism> towards
religious statements. Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in
being an agnostic because even theists
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theists> do not claim to know God exists,
only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and
atheists <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism> in the broader sense do
not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one.
>>A belief does not equate to knowledge, as I'm sure you can agree.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>
>>>>Seems neither group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite
>>>>happily without embracing their particular beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Atheism is not a belief system. There are no beliefs to embrace.
>>>
>>>
>>But you know as well as I that atheism can be expressed positively or
>>negatively- as a lack of belief, or as a belief that God does not exist.
>>
>>
>
>But as definitions, one of those is redundant, because neither subject
>believes. It is that which is the essence and that which defines the
>atheist. Just as an atheist may drive a Ford, an atheist may express
>his atheism as a positive belief. Neither is required for him to be
>an atheist. Atheists might have belief systems, but atheism itself is
>not a belief system. It is the absence of a certain belief system.
>Surely this is not difficult stuff.
>
Quite simply an atheist may be defined as a person who does not believe
in God. That's the popular definition, and I see no reason to complicate it.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>sean McHugh
>
>
>
I'm pleased to note the absence of personal attack in your post. It
makes a refreshing change.
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'Some mistakes are too good to make only once'
Chris Bell
>
> lynx wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You have got to be kidding. An atheist is one without belief in
> any gods - period. How much more simple and clear can it get
> than that?
>
>
> Sean McHugh
>
> Atheist are very much like Christians. We only disbelieve in
> one additional god.
>
think it is as simple as that. It said a god is a supernatural being.
Well I don't believe in anything supernatural, nor that God is a being.
God simply is. So I am certainly not a theist, nor am I an atheist,
according to dictionary definitions. I find I am probably a deist
instead, so I don't have a god but a deity, but I'm not really sure. I
always thought these were synonyms!
Oh the joys of the english language.
Chris
ps are you also an adeist?
Sean McHugh
Well I was writing under the assupmtion that the majority of
Christians are theists and they believe in God. I know that
that is not necessarily the case for every Christian. Please
let me allow for exemptions where they apply.
> ps are you also an adeist?
Yes.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
lynx
>lynx wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sean.. I'm adding a bit more to my remarks in the original post. If you
>>(or anyone else) intend to reply, please cut'n'paste it into the reply.
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>
>Haven't we already discussed the business of multiple replies? I have
>already written and posted my reply, before seeing this one.
>
And I have written a reply to that one before seeing this one.
> Anyway,
>what you request, is asking people to assemble/edit your posts for
>you. Couldn't you wait for my reply and include this in your next?
>
Yes, but I'm impatient. :)
>
>Now the whole thing gets doubled and split into two paths.
>
>
Don't sweat it. Usernet posting isn't such a serious matter. But to
rectify then I will respond only to the additional bit here.
>>I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to
>>popularize, that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'.
>>
>>
>
>Oh the revelation! Peter, you made that clear in your previous post
>(and throughout your history) and I have responded to that post.
>This parallel thread is unnecessary.
>
>
If you considered that comment unnecessary, then YOU didn't need to
comment did you.
>> A belief is a positive thing, so a lack of belief in something is
>>essentially some other belief.
>>
>>
>
>That is possibly the most absurd thing you have ever said. Peter, from
>three headed gods, to flying horses to talking snakes, there are an
>infinite numer of things in which most of us lack belief. In most
>cases, we haven't even considered them yet. Are you really going to
>maintain that all of these things, including the unconsidered,
>constitute beliefs that we have to lug around?
>
I'm simply saying- and using one of your examples- that a lack of belief
in talking snakes, is also a belief that they don't exist. What's the
big deal?
> Atheists don't believe in ANY gods.
>
Yes, I know.
> God has no
>special privilege in terms of atheistic unbelief. If you could you
>can understand that, you would be making the first step.
>
>
I believe that there can only be one God. So it's superfluous and
irrelevant to me whether or not atheists don't believe in one god or
more as to the definition of what an atheist is.
>>Belief has an element of choice or decision about it,
>>
>>
>
>Bollicks! I can't decide to start believing in the Invisible Pink
>Unicorn and neither, I suspect, can you. I don't choose my beliefs,
>they choose me. If I could simply choose to believe what I wanted,
>do you think I would prefer to believe that most of my life is over?
>
>
Well, we just see things differently then. I'm happy to leave it at
that. But I still believe I'm right. Most beliefs, it not all, are based
on some evidence, and are therefore a considered judgement of
probability, and therefore a decision of sorts.
>>and so a person should not by default be held to
>>subscribe to some belief or position merely because they can't affirm
>>some other belief or position.
>>
>>
>
>Pot/Kettle. I'm not telling you what Christianity is. You are telling
>me what atheism is - again.
>
I am giving you my thoughts on the matter, and you don't seem to like
it. Don't reply then.
>>I concur completely with what Chris
>>HoStuart said some years ago that a person is not an atheist unless they
>>claim to be one.
>>
>>
>
>Are you sure he said that? I would be VERY surprised. Can you find
>it?
>
>
Yes I can. But I'll email you about it if you really want.
>BTW, let's ask you the testing question you propose. Do you believe
>in God (Yes or No)?
>
>
Maybe. :)
>>That's not to say that the matter cannot or should not be more
>>'involved' than that, but it is to say that it can be reduced to this
>>basic form for the purpose of clarity.
>>
>>
>
>You have got to be kidding. An atheist is one without belief in
>any gods - period. How much more simple and clear can it get
>than that?
>
>
But it's the atheists who want to complicate it, and argue about the
definition, as many atheists sites attest.
>
>Sean McHugh
>
>
Seems like you're getting peeved, so maybe well end it here. I'm off to
bed now anyway.
Sean McHugh
lynx wrote:
<snip>
> Seems like you're getting peeved, so maybe well end it here. I'm off to
> bed now anyway.
I read my post and it was unduly angry and somewhat rude. I was
impressed that you took it well. No need to respond to this note.
Anyway, it's off topic. I will be answering your posts but there
may be a delay. Too many things on the go.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158188753....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
>> >> this:
>> >
>> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>>
>> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
>> was/is...
>
> As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
> person to the next.
LOL, YET, these people all *would* know who Jesus was/is.
The person I'm talking about didn't.
I discern from your tapdance that you don't want to deal with
this particular problem, but are unwilling to say so.
<cut>
>
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
And I told you I don't care if God calls me home tomorrow.
>
>
> Andrew <><
June 1978
"A drug is neither moral nor immoral-it's a chemical compound. The
compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats
it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an
asshole." -- Frank Zappa
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
> >> >> this:
> >> >
> >> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
> >>
> >> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
> >> was/is...
> >
> > As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
> > person to the next.
>
> LOL
"Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to find
the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
Mark T
> I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to popularize,
> that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'.
... evn though it is true.
> Those who answer 'yes' to the question "Does God exist?" or "Do you
> believe in God?" are theists
I don't believe God exists but I am not an atheist. I believe God is the
ground of all existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since the question "what is an atheist?" frequently comes up, and since
there seems to be some confusion, here are a few basic facts.
We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that statements such as "X is a
Christian" and "Y is an Atheist" are similar statements. Yes, they are
grammatically identical, but logically they are very different (aside from
being theologically different).
The "a-" prefix in "atheism" and "atheist" is the negative prefix in Greek,
and it means simply "non-," "not." Atheist means, then, "not a theist." And
that is ALL it means. (A "theist" is one who has some belief in a deity or
deities.)
Therefore, to say "So-and-so is an atheist" is not an affirmative statement,
but a negative one. It is like saying "So-and-so does not own a Ford." Or
"So-and-so does not eat peanut butter." Or "So-and-so is not a Hindu." From
these negative statements it is not justifiable to draw any further
conclusions about So-and-so; there is no affirmative information in those
statements.
To put it another way, such a statement is not saying that so-and-so is a
member of the atheist class, because there is no such class. At least, there
is no such class about which any meaningful statement or generalization can
be made. It is a class only definable in terms of the theist class, and thus
it is not a meaningful class. That is, the only thing that atheists
(non-theists) have in common is that one characteristic: non-membership in
the theist class.
Hitler was not a Hindu. I am not a Hindu. Do you know anything more about me
or about Hitler, from those statements? Do those statements imply any
further characteristics he and I may have in common? No.
Even the characteristic of non-belief in God can take many forms. Some
atheists affirmatively deny God: "There is no God, that's for sure." Others
say: "I have no belief in God because the evidence I have seen so far does
not, in my view, warrant such a belief." Still others say: "I don't believe
in God, because if I did I would have to act differently." And others say:
"I don't give a damn, one way or the other."
Since none of these people have a belief in God, they are not theists.
Therefore, the term a-theist (non-theist) is appropriate for them, even
though the term tells us nothing more about their beliefs, their morals, or
their lives than that one bare, negative fact.
So, don't lump atheists together. Atheists are not a group. We have no
common beliefs, no scriptures, nothing necessarily in common except the lack
of that one belief.
To say that "Z is a Christian," however, provides us with a great deal of
information: Z is a theist, a follower of Jesus and the teachings of the New
Testament (however they may be interpreted). We can get a general idea of
what Z believes by reading those scriptures on which the Christian religion
is based (although our idea may be mistaken in some details). Z can
theoretically be evaluated as to how "true" a Christian he is by how
correctly he interprets his scriptures and by how closely he follows the
precepts of his religion. For atheists, however, there is no such standard.
It would be ridiculous to say that "X is not a very good atheist" or "Y is a
true atheist."
George H. Smith, in his book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, a sort
of sequel (1991) to his earlier book Atheism: The Case Against God,
discusses a number of different kinds or bases for atheism, (pp. 183 ff):
ETHICAL ATHEISM or EXISTENTIAL ATHEISM (Sartre, Camus):
Because life is absurd, there is no god. The idea of god is inconsistent
with the idea of freedom.
PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM (Feuerbach):
Ideas of god are simply of psychological origin.
SOCIOLOGICAL ATHEISM (Engels, Bakunin):
Ideas of god are false because they have caused social repression.
PRAGMATIC ATHEISM:
Ideas of god are not useful, therefore they must be false.
METAPHYSICAL ATHEISM (d'Holbach, Marx):
Since only matter exists, god - being immaterial - cannot exist.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ATHEISM:
Knowledge of god is impossible. There are several subcategories:
SKEPTICAL ATHEISM: (based on Hume, although Hume was not atheist)
Since one cannot be certain of knowing anything, one cannot know of
the existence of God.
LOGICAL-POSITIVE ATHEISM (Ayer):
Any statement about a transcendent being is fundamentally meaningless.
LINGUISTIC-ANALYSIS ATHEISM:
Since the term "god" cannot be defined, it cannot have meaning.
OBJECTIVIST ATHEISM (Ayn Rand):
Proof of anything about god has never been satisfactorily given.
Smith discusses each of the above, and points out the problems with each
view, except for the last one (Rand). He is obviously a Randian.
"Agnostic" is a term often used for those who say that they "don't know"
whether there is a god or gods. The root of this word is the Greek word
"gnosis" meaning "knowledge." Thus, this term is also a negative: an
agnostic is a "non-knower." Agnostics, then, are a particular kind of
atheist, since they also are not theists; i.e., they lack a belief in God.
It has become customary for open-minded atheists to call themselves
agnostics, to distinguish themselves from those atheists who affirmatively
assert the non-existence of god, but I personally don't find the distinction
useful or accurate... (isn't everybody open-minded?).
from http://home.teleport.com/~packham/atheist3.htm
Mark T
>> Atheist are very much like Christians. We only disbelieve in one
>> additional god.
>>
> This got me reaching for my dictionary, and I have to admit that I don't
> think it is as simple as that. It said a god is a supernatural being. Well
> I don't believe in anything supernatural, nor that God is a being. God
> simply is. So I am certainly not a theist, nor am I an atheist, according
> to dictionary definitions. I find I am probably a deist instead, so I
> don't have a god but a deity, but I'm not really sure. I always thought
> these were synonyms!
Blame Wittgenstein and his linguistic analysis. ;-)
Mark T
>>Do you believe in God (Yes or No)?
>
> Maybe. :)
That's a "Po" therefore not theist and not atheist ... perhaps agnostic ...
yet agnostixcism is based on insufficient evidence - a "don't know" not a
bet each way.
Barry OGrady
>"lynx" wrote:
>
>
>> I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to popularize,
>> that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'.
>
>... evn though it is true.
>
>
>> Those who answer 'yes' to the question "Does God exist?" or "Do you
>> believe in God?" are theists
>
>I don't believe God exists but I am not an atheist. I believe God is the
>ground of all existence.
Mark doesn't believe existence exists.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158275885.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-14 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
>> >> >> this:
>> >> >
>> >> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>> >>
>> >> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
>> >> was/is...
>> >
>> > As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
>> > person to the next.
>>
>> LOL
>
> "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
Ahem, you used this *quote* for over a year, yet you didn't
attribute it to the Holy Spirit, another indication that you
make things up as you go along.
Just one example:
=== quote
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Subject: Re: Good to see you back Andrew
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:32:32 -0400
Organization: http://www.heartmdphd.com
Message-ID: <435BD740...@heartmdphd.com>
Reply-To: cardiologi...@heartmdphd.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4349bb5c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <3127799.n...@192.168.1.1> <7utjk1h2eq1k7r17d...@4ax.com> <434a1904$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <11kks19...@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 35
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> wazzad wrote:
>
> > Amen John
> > God bless you.
> > Cheers
> > Ron
>
> <LOL>
Written laughter is silent despair.
> And so it starts again...
Lord Jesus makes everything new.
In Christ's love and service forevermore,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
===== end quote
No attribution to the Holy Spirit there...
<big grin>
Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit
from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God to know
that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John needed.
You failed (not even attempted) to prove that "Thomas" the Jew
was a *atheist*. Because if he were, he couldn't have followed
Jesus for 3 years.
And if my time's up, then I will leave this planet regardless of
your prayers or feigned good wishes, just like Terry Shiavo left
it *IN SPITE* THE many prayers spoken on her behalf.....
May the Ground of all our being "God" finally start to heal your
heart and soul (since you need healing like the rest of us
humans desperately ) my most beloved brother Andrew....
>
>
> Andrew <><
<cut botched up Sig>
June 1978
Challenged - crippled.
-- Uncle Al
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>
> Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
> the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit
> from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God to know
> that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John needed.
His speech is for the benefit of those who have not received the Holy
Spirit, so that they would understand his place relative to the
Messiah, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
> You failed (not even attempted) to prove that "Thomas" the Jew
> was a *atheist*. Because if he were, he couldn't have followed
> Jesus for 3 years.
Judas Iscariot worshipped money and yet also followed Jesus for the
same length of time as "Doubting" Thomas. Indeed, Thomas was one of
the few willing to follow Jesus back into Jerusalem but he expressed
this willingness along with the expectation of dying with Jesus. The
latter is yet another indication that though he had accepted Jesus as
his leader (i.e. lord), he had not accepted Jesus as GOD prior to
witnessing that HE had indeed risen.
> And if my time's up, then I will leave this planet regardless of
> your prayers or feigned good wishes, just like Terry Shiavo left
> it *IN SPITE* THE many prayers spoken on her behalf.....
GOD is able to change HIS mind (Jonah).
HIS will be done and not my will.
> May the Ground of all our being "God" finally start to heal your
> heart and soul (since you need healing like the rest of us
> humans desperately ) my most beloved brother Andrew....
Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind words.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you the time you
need to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
lynx
>"lynx" wrote:
>
>
>>I don't subscribe to the line of thought that atheists like to popularize,
>>that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'.
>>
>>
>
>.... even though it is true.
>
>
I wish I had never raised this subject. I was just trying to say that
atheism isn't just a negative thing.
>>Those who answer 'yes' to the question "Does God exist?" or "Do you
>>believe in God?" are theists
>>
>>
>
>I don't believe God exists but I am not an atheist.
>
As Barry has suggested (I believe) maybe you're an atheist who doesn't
want to let go of the God concept. You want to have a finger in both
pies. You want your cake, and to eat it too!
> I believe God is the ground of all existence.
>
>
Then you need to explain what 'ground' means.
Atheists love to say 'don't lump us together'. That is until they want
to defend atheists/atheism. Then they're quite happy to claim some
common identity.
> We have no
>common beliefs, no scriptures, nothing necessarily in common except the lack
>of that one belief.
>
>
There are however some typically atheistic characteristics. Irreverence,
and a lack of tolerance for religious ideas or ppl, or even an
aggressive anti-religious position, would be one. A lack of moral
inhibition is another that I've noticed. Of all the persons that I
encounter on usernet, it's usually those who identify as being atheist
who are most likely to use profanity and blasphemy- although atheists
don't consider there is such a thing as blasphemy. But on a positive
note.. in general atheists seem to be of (well) above average
intelligence. There are probably many more 'atheistic characteristics'
of course.
>To say that "Z is a Christian," however, provides us with a great deal of
>information: Z is a theist, a follower of Jesus and the teachings of the New
>Testament (however they may be interpreted). We can get a general idea of
>what Z believes by reading those scriptures on which the Christian religion
>is based (although our idea may be mistaken in some details). Z can
>theoretically be evaluated as to how "true" a Christian he is by how
>correctly he interprets his scriptures and by how closely he follows the
>precepts of his religion. For atheists, however, there is no such standard.
>It would be ridiculous to say that "X is not a very good atheist" or "Y is a
>true atheist."
>
>
If however X claims to be an atheist, but says or does things
inconsistent with that position, then one could suggest that X is not an
atheist at all. The precursor to that then would perhaps be the
suggestion that "X is not a very good atheist" or "X is not a true
atheist."
In general that's a very good explanation, and the 'kinds or bases for
atheism' are interesting.
(but why am i talking to you!?? )
lynx
Sean.. I ignored this comment in my original response as I didn't want
the discussion to become too involved. But it's been on my mind,
especially in view of your closing remark, so I'll comment now. (now the
thread is even messier, but I know that you're more than capable of
sorting it out)
>Simply saying that you don't believe in God does not constitute a
>positive claim. It is not the same as declaring that there are
>no gods. Imagine I am buying a lottery ticket and someone asks me
>if I think I am purchasing the winning ticket (Yes or No). Being
>honest, I would say, 'No' simply because I know the chances are
>small. That is not the same as my declaring that I am purchasing
>a losing ticket. If that were so, my purchasing it wouldn't make
>sense. Unfortunately, I afford little chance of you understanding
>the difference - ever.
>
>
Regardless of the point that you're trying to make re atheism, the
example is flawed, since the person has answered dishonestly. Their
answer should have been 'maybe', since as you say, no one would buy a
lottery ticket believing that they have no chance of winning. They
haven't (as you say) answered honestly at all. (I am assuming here that
you're using the word 'think' in the sense of 'believe', since in your
initial remarks you refer to belief)
>Sean McHugh
>
>Atheist are very much like Christians. We only disbelieve in
>one additional god.
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'Never buy a car you can't push'
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158308256.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-15 announced this statement:
Alas I doubt it very much that you get any guidance by the Holy
Spirit, you show little fruits of that.
>
>>
>> Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
>> the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy
>> Spirit from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God
>> to know that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John
>> needed.
>
> His speech is for the benefit of those who have not received
> the Holy Spirit, so that they would understand his place
> relative to the Messiah, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
John 1 31 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but that he
should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing
with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit
descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but he that sent me
to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same
is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you are
wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit". How funny
that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks for the laugh.
It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to Jesus,
while I see the opposite of it taking place, people *turning*
away from your testimony...
<cut>
June 1978
"I *failed* the Turing test?!?"