Questions for the Believer
Jitpring
one?
2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be
the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how do
you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
if any, is the right one?
8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at His
goal?
11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
Holocaust of the Second World War?
12) Why should one零 inner convictions about the existence of God
indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person零 mind?
13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the
most still be considered all good?
14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He
created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
contradictory faiths in the world?
18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your
faith be considered anything other than a cult?
21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the
first place?
23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are
you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
other ancient gods and goddesses?
24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
smaller than their numbers in the general population?
25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old
Testament still a loving God?
26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
trusted?
27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
other than evil?
28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
Christians? (Luke 14:26)
30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
slavery and war?
32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation
in Genesis?
33) Why isn靖 the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no
doubt about what it means?
34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the
Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
fundamentalists today?
georgann
> 1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
> one?
I would define God as Holiness.
Because "I am".
> 2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
Who said everything needed a creator?
Have you created anything 100% unique lately?
> 3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
Have you ever felt a mother's love?
> 4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be
> the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
All religions prescribe what is good.
Jesus offers us salvation by Grace alone,
while our sins still have consequences.
> 5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
Maybe about the incidentals.
> 6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how do
> you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
I ask them what Grace, Honesty and Holiness is.
The answer depends on theirs.
> 7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
> if any, is the right one?
See above.
> 8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
You asking for another flood?
> 9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
> supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
> consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
The Popes were not Christ.
Neither are the other people that do these things.
They just want to be the king of their own universe.
> 10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
> benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
> suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
> go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at His
> goal?
An eternity to us is but a twinkling in the eye of God.
And forgotten just as fast.
> 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
> antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
> Holocaust of the Second World War?
Everything has been provided and accomplished.
Christ is risen.
Evil men do evil.
> 12) Why should one1s inner convictions about the existence of God
> indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person1s mind?
Ever see a person in a coma?
Are their mind alive, dead or just off?
> 13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the
> most still be considered all good?
Abandoned means He never somes back.
Who ever said we were abandoned?
> 14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
Who knows what rational is?
Are you sure?
> 15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He
> created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
God's will is perfect whether we see it or not.
Exactly who is to judge God that is not full of pride?
> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
Opening your heart to truth without fear.
Asking for truth without pride.
Then accepting the answers.
> 17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
> contradictory faiths in the world?
- - - - - - - - - -
> 18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
Intellectual "integrity" is directly proportional
to pride. Confort is not allowing oneself to be put up
to ridicule. They have nothing to do with one another.
Many people can humiliate you.
Only you can humble yourself before God.
And passivity is not of God.
> 19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
God Himself would have to tell me.
Very softly. Several ways.
Several times. Then once again for good measure.
> 20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your
> faith be considered anything other than a cult?
Cause there is only one God.
And He always lifts up your spirit;
Cults put one man in the center and wear the
followers down into obedience, breaking their spirit
> 21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
> compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
What is moral when pride is the reason and
the center of the goodness?
> 22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
> disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the
> first place?
What injustice is there if you do die?
Actually non-believers do blame God.
> 23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are
> you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
> other ancient gods and goddesses?
No one can prove a negative.
> 24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
> smaller than their numbers in the general population?
Sometimes a man is broken before he will consider God.
A last resort thing.
> 25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old
> Testament still a loving God?
Absolutely and perfectly.
> 26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
> trusted?
Depends on whether you know what faith is.
The opposite of reason is not faith.
The opposite of faith is not reason.
> 27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
> everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
> other than evil?
What if everyone He killed was purely evil?
> 28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
> consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
Magic no.
And tread lightly on the others.
> 29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
> Christians? (Luke 14:26)
Not if you mean despise without cause.
If you mean don't let anyone talk you out of
knowing God, then yes.
> 30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
> Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
> humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
What makes you think spirts cannot lie in backwards time?
Why can't God place Himself in time where He wants?
The oldest is not necessarily the correct view.
> 31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
> slavery and war?
It doesn't condone them either.
These are things of man's doing.
> 32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
> many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation
> in Genesis?
Not contradictory. Different.
> 33) Why isn1t the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no
> doubt about what it means?
You mean in that language that doesn't exist yet?
(Let those who have the ears to hear.....)
> 34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the
> Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
> fundamentalists today?
What makes you think the Dark Ages could have been avoided?
The huns were not exactly altar boys!
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
Jitpring <jitp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:386148...@earthlink.net...
> 34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in
the
> Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
> fundamentalists today?
I was hearing on the History Channel last week that the fork was
invented in Italy around 1100 AD but priests disapproved of its use.
They said that God gave us fingers to use for anything that couldn't
be eaten with a spoon. Thus it wasn't until the 18th century that
there was widespread use of forks along with spoons.
If Christian fundamentalists have their way, anything useful
discovered by scientists today will be similarly prohibited because it
is too scary. In Kansas, the state school board restriction that
created all the furor wasn't just about evolution but was meant to
exclude all science as a way of knowing about the world. This
happened because a fundamentalist nut got elected to a position of
influence.
Bushman
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3862FA30...@mindspring.com...
I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
bothered going point for point and using the same approach to each - the
same approach an insurance agent would use to sell a policy. It's a sales
rap, and not very convincing. It reeks of irrational thought.
Bushman
georgann
> I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
> Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
Georgann responded:
That's cause God's draws us closer with the heart. It not a head thing.
chasbas
[snip Georgann's "answers"]
> I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
> Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> bothered going point for point and using the same approach to each - the
> same approach an insurance agent would use to sell a policy. It's a sales
> rap, and not very convincing. It reeks of irrational thought.
>
> Bushman
The "answers" were not even entertaining. I stopped reading after the 4th
one. People like Georgann don't realize that words have meanings and you
can't just toss them about like sofa pillows to make someplace comfortable
for your butt.
georgann
> > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
> > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> > bothered going point for point and using the same approach to each - the
> > same approach an insurance agent would use to sell a policy. It's a sales
> > rap, and not very convincing. It reeks of irrational thought.
chasbas :
> The "answers" were not even entertaining.
> I stopped reading after the 4th
> one. People like Georgann don't realize that words have meanings and you
> can't just toss them about like sofa pillows to make someplace comfortable
> for your butt.
You think God is particularly concerned with your daily amusements?
"In the Beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He (Christ) was in the beginning with God."
John 1:1-2
georgann
--- knows full well that words have meaning ---
--- so do word pictures ---
chasbas
> Bushman submitted:
> > > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle
them.
> > > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> > > bothered going point for point and using the same approach to each -
the
> > > same approach an insurance agent would use to sell a policy. It's a
sales
> > > rap, and not very convincing. It reeks of irrational thought.
>
> > The "answers" were not even entertaining.
>
> > I stopped reading after the 4th
> > one. People like Georgann don't realize that words have meanings and
you
> > can't just toss them about like sofa pillows to make someplace
comfortable
> > for your butt.
>
>
> You think God is particularly concerned with your daily amusements?
Doesn't he know when a sparrow falls? Isn't my amusement at least that
important?
>
> "In the Beginning was the Word,
> and the Word was with God,
> and the Word was God.
> He (Christ) was in the beginning with God."
> John 1:1-2
What the hell does this mean? Please distinguish between "Beginning" and
"beginning". Between "Word" and the actual word "word". What does it mean
for a "Word" to be "with" "God"? And how could it be "with" "God" at the
same time as it "was" "God"? Is "(Christ)" part of the original text in
Hebrew? If not, how do you know the pronoun's referent? And why was this
extraneous last line placed here? The previous three lines did not mention
Christ, but instead "Word".
If you are declaring this to be poetry and subject to poetic interpretation
and analysis, then that's fine. It's when you declare it to be objective
information that you lose all credibility.
>
> georgann
> --- knows full well that words have meaning ---
> --- so do word pictures ---
"Word pictures" are poetic, and their meanings are subject to
interpretation. "Words" have specific meanings in context and are not
subject to interpretation (except insofar as their meanings have changed
from the writer's original understanding). Someone intending to convey
specific information would be smart to define all terms and write clearly
and concisely, instead of cloaking the information in word pictures with
dubious meanings.
chas
georgann
> > > > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
> > > > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> > > > bothered going point for point and using the same approach to each - the
> > > > same approach an insurance agent would use to sell a policy. It's a sales
> > > > rap, and not very convincing. It reeks of irrational thought.
chasbas:
> > > The "answers" were not even entertaining.
> > > I stopped reading after the 4th
> > > one. People like Georgann don't realize that words have meanings and you
> > > can't just toss them about like sofa pillows to make someplace comfortable
> > > for your butt.
Georgann:
> > You think God is particularly concerned with your daily amusements?
chasbas returned:
> Doesn't he know when a sparrow falls? Isn't my amusement at least that
> important?
georgann:
I stand corrected. He is interested in your daily amusement.
*****************************
Georgann:
> > "In the Beginning was the Word,
> > and the Word was with God,
> > and the Word was God.
> > He (Christ) was in the beginning with God."
> > John 1:1-2
chas:
> What the hell does this mean? Please distinguish between "Beginning" and
> "beginning". Between "Word" and the actual word "word". What does it mean
> for a "Word" to be "with" "God"? And how could it be "with" "God" at the
> same time as it "was" "God"? Is "(Christ)" part of the original text in
> Hebrew? If not, how do you know the pronoun's referent? And why was this
> extraneous last line placed here? The previous three lines did not mention
> Christ, but instead "Word".
**********************
georgann:
It means when God spoke it was the beginning. (When God speaks
Scientists listen.)
Beginning means before the "Genesis Creation Days". Little w "word"
means "everything that has meaning" originated from God. Big W Word is
Jesus or the person of God in the pre-incarnate state.
Jesus was with God (the Father) before the creation and after His
earthly birth are the same Christ. (Its an in-time out-of-time thing.
Another dimension actually.)
(John 1:1-2 was not in Hebrew but originally in Greek since it is New
Testament text.)
**********************
chas:
> If you are declaring this to be poetry and subject to poetic interpretation
> and analysis, then that's fine. It's when you declare it to be objective
> information that you lose all credibility.
**********************
georgann
Not poetry. Reality.
**********************
> > georgann
> > --- knows full well that words have meaning ---
> > --- so do word pictures ---
chas:
> "Word pictures" are poetic, and their meanings are subject to
> interpretation. "Words" have specific meanings in context and are not
> subject to interpretation (except insofar as their meanings have changed
> from the writer's original understanding). Someone intending to convey
> specific information would be smart to define all terms and write clearly
> and concisely, instead of cloaking the information in word pictures with
> dubious meanings.
georgann:
Quite the opposite.
I was referring to ICONS. Icons are pictures that mean very specific
things. Like the picture of a THRONE. Words often change meanings
depending on the times and the places and the connotations in which they
are used. I was also taking a pop at the artDL math department who have
concurred together that an infinite faction and a finite whole number
are identical. The pictures say they are wrong and they are using words
to go absolutely nowhere in refutting this obvious inequality.
August XXi
>Jitpring wrote:
>
>> 1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
>> one?
[snip silly stuff]
>> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
>
> Opening your heart to truth without fear.
> Asking for truth without pride.
> Then accepting the answers.
From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
August
georgann
snips gallore
> >> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
> > Asking for truth without pride.
> > Then accepting the answers.
August XXi wrote:
> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
georgann responds:
This from one who obviously thinks that a lack of pride means being
passive or displaying a false humility by acting uncertain.
We both have firmly held beliefs.
The singlemost difference betewen them is that my beliefs are NOT of my
own pride-filled invention.
August XXi
> > >Jitpring wrote:
>snips gallore
>> >> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
>
>georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
>> > Asking for truth without pride.
>> > Then accepting the answers.
>
>August XXi wrote:
>> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
>> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
>
>georgann responds:
>This from one who obviously thinks that a lack of pride means being
>passive or displaying a false humility by acting uncertain.
Not at all. I just think you're full of yourself, and it has nothing to do
with your spiritual beliefs.
>
>We both have firmly held beliefs.
>
>The singlemost difference betewen them is that my beliefs are NOT of my
>own pride-filled invention.
If you didn't make them up, some other guy did. Man made god in his own image.
August
scrambled_eggs_w/_spam_&_genitals
It's beyond our puny human comprehension. It's a matter of *faith*.
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
-- Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
georgann
(mega snips)
> >> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
georgann replied:
> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
> > Asking for truth without pride.
> > Then accepting the answers.
August XXi wrote:
> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
georgann again:
And now I understand, August, why you are so determinedly tracking,
luring and taunting Kelly to come back. Some "big boys" only want to
poke at softer targets.
doug L.
local Priest or Rabbi. I suspect that you don't really care.
By the way, have you ever love from your mother, or
loved someone. Probably, but describing it doesn't
quite cut it. Read various scripture. If truth touches your
heart, then you will know the answers. -doug
August XXi
Kelly asks for every taunt she receives. I didn't ask her to come back, I
never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names harrassing
people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
I don't even know what you mean by calling Kelly "soft," that's not a word I
would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe you.
And I'm not a very big boy, I'm kind of scrawny these days.
But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to think pride goes
against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
August
Neutrodyne
>From: Jitpring jitp...@earthlink.net
>Date: Wed, 22 December 1999 04:54 PM EST
>Message-id: <386148...@earthlink.net>
>
Hello, can 'o worms....
>1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
>one?
I've seen God. God is the creator of the universe we can observe.
>2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
We don't know. Why would that be surprising? Does a dog know who creates the
food in the bag, or does he only know the person who feeds it to him?
>3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
Do you have to know the physics of clouds to know it rains? DO you have to be
able to descibe or even visualize the Otto 4 cycle combustion cycle or the
atomic structures of gasoline and air to drive a car, or know the function of a
school bus?
>4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be
>the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
Why do you use the dish washing detergent you use, when all the others claim to
be better? There is no "one true religion", only striving to create a way to
spread the basic principles of cooperation and love among people. As with
advertizing, some choices made end up working against the product.
>5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
Certainly.
>6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how do
>you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
If it's right for them and leads them to have a better life in their own
judgemnent, without hurting others, I am happy for them. Just as I am happy
when Atheists use their beliefs to be honorable, respectful people.
>7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
>if any, is the right one?
>
There is no reason to do that. This isn't mathematics. Two or three or a
thousand trains are not leaving stations and heading for an intersection where
they will crash and only some will survive. They are heading for a destiniation
where all can be safely accomodated.
>8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
>
We have free will. When you play a computer game, it isn't fun and doesn't
involve you if you can easily predict everything that will happen and react
faster than any aspect of the game. God want's us to have a full range of
choices or our choices will be meaningless. What we choose to take from a
religion and apply to life is the critical choice, not the particular church we
choose to take it from.
>9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
>supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
>consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
Have you stopped beating your wife? This is hardly a fair question, but I will
persist. The bloody history of Christianity, of Islam and of all other
religious and non-religious peoples throughout history has more to do with
human nature than any religion. The Romans changed little in their warlike ways
after becoming Christains, but remained essentially Romans. Can one blame
Stalin's Atheism for his murderous rampages? I submit he would have been just
as happy to murder under the banner of Pope Josef as he was under his Communist
flag.
>10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
>benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
>suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
>go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at His
>goal?
R & D. Why didn't Henry Ford stay in the barn until he came out with the 1999
Volvo? Why did we suffer through 99 years of polluting, sputtering, dangerous
Model T's and Model A's and Edsels before we reached what the Swedes tell us is
automotive perfection? God can do things we can't. To imagine that he has not
limitations that beyond our understanding would be illogical. CAn we know?
Probably not, but we use the tools at our disposal.
>12) Why should one零 inner convictions about the existence of God
>indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person零 mind?
Unless you think you are the only person alive and are imagining everything you
see, this could be applied to anything and everything. This is a slippery slope
that cannot be negotiated honestly. Am I a creation of your imagination, or you
of mine? Sounds like a matter for that Twilighty Show about that Zone.
>13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the
>most still be considered all good?
This cannot be answered without qualifications. Can a parent who allows his
child to suffer adversity in order to make the child stronger be considered
good, when all you highlight is the child's suffering? Is the dad who gets his
kid up at 5AM every day to throw a football, bad, once the kid wins the
Heisman trophy, or becomes a great leader due to his focus and dilligence?
Leaving out enough details makes anything easy.
>14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
>
Love is not rational, do you believe in it? Many processes are beyond a given
person's understanding (see the internal combustion area) - does this mean it
is irrational to accept anything you cannot explain in detail or see
personally?
>15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He
>created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
WIthout contrast and choice, there can be no meaning.
>16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
One has to rely on the word and experience of others to a huge extent, every
day. One must apply reason to the inputs one gets, but no one can know a solid
arguement for every risk one takes. One weighs the eveidence and lives life
accordingly. Can you tell me the exact reasons a brake pedal will stop a moving
car? Don't you rely on the experience of others and your own to decide if you
will risk driving when you aren't sure of the brakes working every single time
you push down the pedal? Is it rational o proceed when you don't know the odds?
>17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
>contradictory faiths in the world?
BEcasue faith is the balancing of life experience, the persuasive skills of the
people one has met, whether in person or through writings. In my view, faith is
not a mathematical formula, it is more like a recipie for a given dish. Within
wide variations, one can be quite creative and still come up with a pleasant,
edible food. The end result is more important than the process in this case.
>18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
>
Of course it is. In the end, only a tiny tiny percentage will let "them" turn
the hungry rats loose on their head before denying whatever "they" want denied.
Intellectual integrity in an aboslute sense becomes much like Laura's black
and white dogmas. It is quite often confused with a rigid freezing of the rules
and denying new input that rivals that of any religious dogma. Indeed what is
often paraded as "intellectual integrity" takes complete and utter faith in the
intellect of just one person, without regard to a thousand equally qualified
dissenting opinions.
>19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
This is probably the best and hardest question on the list. I don't know what
it would take, or I would be seeking it out. I do not disallow the possibility
that I could be wrong or that I could not be convinced I am wrong. I have to
say that I believe the way I do because this is my best guess given the input I
have so far. I wouldn't continue to hang around here if I didn't respect the
possibility that I can learn something and I do not fear the possibility that
it could change my faith. I am confident, but not arrogant.
Can you answer the same question in more concerete terms?
>20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your
>faith be considered anything other than a cult?
This doesn't apply. I know how many times I've been wrong before, so I seek the
best answers I can find.
>21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
>compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
>
I've thought about this a lot and I think such an Atheist will be pleasantly
surprised. Religion has changed to suit the times and the intellectual
capabilities of the people through the ages. There are certainly those who
place less emphasis today on the ritual and more on the moral principles and
interpersonal standards than has been traditional. Certainly Christianity took
such a step forward from older teachings. I believe the changes Christ
instigated were meant to continue as people improved their basic levels of
education and ability to help each other. You can't treat religion as a
monolith here. If the Bible and religion are, as I believe, results oriented
tools, then an Atheist would certainly have the ability to be accepted by G-d,
just as the Gentiles were allowed to be accepted under the teachings of Christ.
>22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
>disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the
>first place?
You'd have to ask somebody who does that. I haven't survived any disasters that
I didn't create to some extent on my own. I was saved from choices I made in
error, not from some unforseeable disaster.
>23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are
>you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
>other ancient gods and goddesses?
>
I don't demand that you disprove anything, except perhaps as a defense when
some start demanding proof from me and insinuatuiing I'm an idiot for beliveing
if I can't prove it to THEIR satisfaction.
>25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old
>Testament still a loving God?
Yes, in the context of the times. People operated on a level different from
what we do. They were much more interested in physical methods for most problem
solving. To establish authority among such peoiple, a vengeful, bloodthirsty
attitude was necessary.
>26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
>trusted?
>
What religions are you talking about that do this? I have only found religions
that to some greater or lesser extend ask that we apply reason to evidence of
faith and make our decision.
>27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
>everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
>other than evil?
Not all religions based on the Bible believe the Old Testament is 100% literal,
for one thing.... But even those that do, reason that according to the story,
the people were suffering from their mistreatment of each other. It was pretty
much like "Lord of the Flies" as I read it.
>28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
>consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
>
Ours or The KGB's? Once again, you tread a fine line between the unexplained
and the unexplainable. Certainly things happen which are beyond logical
expectations. Is a gambler, who can plot the tremendous odds against him,
mentally ill? Who would be left to run the assylums in a society with the
standards you imply here?
>29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
>Christians? (Luke 14:26)
>
No.
>30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
>Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
>humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
Because of the moral and ethical principles it espouses and reenforces. The
core of the message and the fact that so many have embraced it over the years
shows the power of it's basis. Can so many be wrong? Sure they can, but it's
mathematically unlikely. Once again, one has to base one's bets on all
observable input.
>31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
>slavery and war?
Have not the modern churches all come to forbid those things? As man develops,
chapters should be added to the Bible. In fact they always have and there has
always been contraversey over what books should be included. In our modern
world, the necessity of new information being attached officially to the Bible
has been lessened by the easier access to books and information by most people.
The ability to agree that new books should be included in the Bible has eroded
with the diversity in the Christian faith. However, there is clear and present
instruction against those evils in Christainity and Judiaism today. Though I am
not entirely familiar, Fred makes it pretty clear that Judiac law and study is
a dynamic process that incorporates new knowlege as man discovers it.
>32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
>many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation
>in Genesis?
I don't subscribe to the "inerrant word of G-d" qualification as you advance
it, and I don't know anyone else who does. Men wrote it, translated it and
tempered it to suit the politics of their lives. G-d inspires the book to have
it's effect on the reader, not to be a literal instruction manual or legalistic
contract.
>33) Why isn靖 the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no
>doubt about what it means?
>
It isn't? Read some books on what "the Lord of the Rings" means and then check
into what the author says he intended. People read all books with rose colored
glasses, and we generally can find what we seek. You seek confusion, it is easy
to find in a book that has been translated so many times, and edited so many
times.
>34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the
>Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
>fundamentalists today?
>
I wasn't aware that Christainity alone or even in the majority was
responsible for the dark ages. Few events of that size are so simply explained.
Perhaps Dr. Charlie, who has considerably more expertise on this era than I
could help us out.
I would say that believing that a few Christian Fundamntalists in todays
political scene, in our one country could bring back the Dark Ages would
require a faith in improbable and aparantly miraculous events that dwarfs any I
can imagine.
You have from me sincere answers to a list of questions. I wonder if you
spent as much time thinking of the questions as I did on the answers, or if
they are not just an old series of traps I haven't run across before. I chose
to respond in good faith, and you are free to pick the answers apart any way
you wish, to laugh or ridicule as you choose. I found it a good evercise, but I
am no expert, not an educated sort. Perhaps I am blissfully ignorant, perhaps
not. I hope some good results for someone from this effort.
Neutrodyne
August XXi
>georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
[snip stuff]
I said:
>Kelly asks for every taunt she receives. I didn't ask her to come back, I
>never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
>came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names
>harrassing
>people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
>pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
After reading-over what I just wrote, I want to make it clear that I don't
consider Tina like Kelly in any way other than relishing the attention she
receives in newsgroups. Tina is not mentally ill, and she is a rather pleasant
person of whom I hold a certain amount of affection. It's fun to tease her,
and I believe she likes to be teased. She drives me crazy with her illogic,
her lack of insight and her stubborn refusal to quote correctly, but I like
her.
August
bigdlaura1
> 25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the
Old
> Testament still a loving God?
This is, in my opinion, the most interesting question. To answer it
requires a definition of loving and possibly of morality (since the
implication seems to be that immoral actions can not be
considered "loving") that is seperate from and applicable to "God". I
know a lot of believers don't have a problem with that, but a lot
(including DL) do.
A question I asked awhile ago was: Assuming there exists a being who is
all-powerful and who created the universe, on what basis does s/he get
to define morality? I got some thoughtful answers then (a couple by
email) and I wonder if any of the new artd-l believers have anything to
say about it.
GISP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wild...@trial.freedom.net
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38636AEA...@mindspring.com...
| Bushman wrote:
| > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
| > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
| > bothered going point for point ...........snip............. It reeks of
irrational thought.
|
| Georgann responded:
| That's cause God's draws us closer with the heart. It not a head thing.
Goergann...there will NEVER be a satisfactory answer for Bushie. He's made
up his mind.
Did you notice the slant to the questions from Jitz?
Gort
|
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Internet privacy -- get your Freedom pseudonym at http://www.freedom.net
georgann
YEAH Doug! One for our team.
georgann
>
> georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >> >Jitpring wrote:
> >(mega snips)
> >
> >
> >> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
> >> > Asking for truth without pride.
> >> > Then accepting the answers.
> >
> >August XXi wrote:
> >> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
> >> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
> >
> >georgann again:
> >And now I understand, August, why you are so determinedly tracking,
> >luring and taunting Kelly to come back. Some "big boys" only want to
> >poke at softer targets.
>
> never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
> came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names harrassing
> people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
> pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
>
> would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe you.
Precisely. You rather enjoy picking on Kelly and pointing out her
vunerable spots. And you resent the hell our of me because you can't
find my soft underbelly to do the same.
> And I'm not a very big boy, I'm kind of scrawny these days.
>
> But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to think pride goes
> against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
You haven't the foggiest idea what sinful pride is do you? You only know
the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to be
humble before God. And to be humble before God is to accept truth. It
has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
of it.
In the secular world's view humility has come to mean passivity. But I
can point out some real doozies that use passivity to manipulate the
tweet out of folks. I can think on one in here right off. And I bet you
know exactly who I mean by theat. You call that not being prideful?
waxingmoon
Jitpring <jitp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:386148...@earthlink.net...
| 1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
| one?
|
| 2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
No one, nothing. He's always existed. Infinity is circular, not linear.
|
| 3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
I call it an awareness. It's like an understanding...
|
| 4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be
| the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
don't know
|
| 5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
maybe
|
| 6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how do
| you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
I don't...who am I to to tell someone their heart is wrong?
|
| 7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
| if any, is the right one?
I just feel my way through, using what brains I have, examine myself, and go
with the one who
has the closest church. Just kidding.
|
| 8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
A parent doesn't prevent their children from believing what they
want. You tell them what your truth is, what you believe. They have to
settle it
themselves.
|
| 9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
| supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
| consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
It illustrates the wickedness of man, in that he would use religion to
justify
his own mortal, evil doings.
|
| 10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
| benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
| suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
| go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at His
| goal?
I'm taking a wait and see approach. Anyway, billions of years...doncha
think
the Creator of the Universe transcends time?
|
| 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
| antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
| Holocaust of the Second World War?
How do you know he didn't? The Germans lost. Better question, why did it
happen at all?
|
| 12) Why should one零 inner convictions about the existence of God
| indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person零 mind?
Because your inner convictions say that he does. Should you ignore your
inner convictions?
|
| 13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the
| most still be considered all good?
I'll need that reference. Even so, he is still good. He is God, we would
not exist at all
if not for him.
|
| 14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
If it is irrational to you, then NO.
|
| 15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He
| created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
That doesn't mean that he isn't good. With no darkness, there' can't be
light.
Without evil, how would we be able to discern good?
|
| 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
I would rephrase that to read: Is there a better way to find truth than
through
knowledge and reason? No.....to fine the Truth, all resources should be
used
Experience, reflection, meditation, observation, intuition, study.
|
| 17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
| contradictory faiths in the world?
|
| 18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
I have both...or neither, sometimes.
|
| 19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
I'll know when I die.
|
| 20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your
| faith be considered anything other than a cult?
I don't worship a person, I haven't
carved any symbols in my skin, or handled snakes.......yet.
|
| 21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
| compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
Because you've committed the eternal sin. You've rejected Christ.
He did a noble thing, to save mankind, why would he give you a get out of
jail free card
when you won't even acknowledge Him?
|
| 22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
| disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the
| first place?
Everyone is different. I've never experienced a disaster (other than this
NG),
I don't know how I would react.
|
| 23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are
| you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
| other ancient gods and goddesses?
I don't demand it...can't prove a negative.
|
| 24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
| smaller than their numbers in the general population?
They "find Jesus" when they hit bottom....and it looks way better for the
parole
board.
|
| 25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old
| Testament still a loving God?
Yes. He sent Christ to save mankind. That's the ultimate act of love.
|
| 26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
| trusted?
I don't know.
|
| 27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
| everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
| other than evil?
Because they were all worthless, evil people. Remember, He created them,
they screwed up.
|
| 28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
| consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
I've known several witches...they were mentally fine. Religion
doesn't indicate mental illness. LOL!
Does atheism indicate mental illness? After all, don't you think everything
just
kind of "happened?"
|
| 29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
| Christians? (Luke 14:26)
He was recruiting disciples. (Christ) He wanted people to commit
100%. Remember, they had a mission to save mankind. Pretty
important stuff.
|
| 30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
| Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
| humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
It has lasted, changed many lives...for the better. For a "myth"
it has withstood the test of time and scrutiny.
|
| 31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
| slavery and war?
It doesn't forbid nor condone.
|
| 32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
| many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation
| in Genesis?
I don't think it does.
|
| 33) Why isn靖 the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no
| doubt about what it means?
Different language, different time, different people...I'm surprised it
makes any sense
at all. Yet, the message is amazingly clear.
|
| 34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the
| Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
| fundamentalists today?
Should the Christians expect another Stalin? With the anti-Christian
atmosphere and a history of being
persecuted, looks like
they have more to fear than you.
Good questions for this Christmas Eve.
Gort
georgann
>
> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38636AEA...@mindspring.com...
> | Bushman wrote:
> | > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle them.
> | > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> | > bothered going point for point ...........snip............. It reeks of
> irrational thought.
> |
> | Georgann responded:
> | That's cause God's draws us closer with the heart. It not a head thing.
>
> Goergann...there will NEVER be a satisfactory answer for Bushie. He's made
> up his mind.
> Did you notice the slant to the questions from Jitz?
Yes they were slanted a tad. But not hard to answer. I found it rather
enjoyable as an exercise to fill lin the blanks. We don't often get to
verbalize such things. It usually starts off vaguely and then flares up
in mutual mental defiance, then just sputters out.
At least with direct questions you get to give a direct answer.
Merry Christmas to you.
georgann
georgann
Even though I'm not sure they were meant to give Christians enjoyment. I
particularly liked your answer ---
> the physics of clouds to know it rains? DO you have to be
> able to descibe or even visualize the Otto 4 cycle combustion cycle or the
> atomic structures of gasoline and air to drive a car, or know the function of a
> school bus?
Christmas Blessings.
georgann
Leah Tilden
this thread. Of course my thoughts on the subject are more of "feeling"
and not really based on logic and things you can taste,touch and see. I
choose to belive in the Almighty,it is not my belief that he needs my
acknowledgement,He is Self-Subsisting.While the Almighty doesn't need my
worship,I need it....prayer,meditation,study,fellowship with other
members of my Faith,trying to live my life each day in service to the
general "good"are acts of worship,and enrich my life. My Faith teaches
that all paths to God are correct and deserve not only "tolerance"but
celebration.When mankind takes it upon it's self-serving self to kill
his brother in the name of religion he is turning his back on God and
the teachings of whatever Prophet he claims to follow. While this sounds
all very touchy-feely and not at all related to life as we know it,
there are millions of people who do try to live UP to the standards of
their faith,Christian,Hindu,Buddhist,etc.and who do not bash each other
with "I'm going to heaven and you're not"...or it's cultural equivalent!
The "best"Christian I ever met was a AIDS infected inmate who did not
wear his religion on his sleeve but quietly performed small (and some
times not so small) acts of kindness for those around him...when his
time is up here on earth I "know"(belive)Jesus will welcome him with
open arms.If your logic and life experience tells you the is no God,that
is fine by me...wouldn't want to change you even if I could...but my
belief in God cannot be explained by logic, it just is....it's a heart
thing backed up by what I "believe" are tangible proofs.
I realize I didn't answer your 16 points...but the most important
question was (I feel)about finding the one "True Faith"....that one true
faith is the one you find after humbling seeking to find that Truth for
yourself...not for anybody else.
Thanks for listening...go in Peace 8-)
LT
August XXi
>August XXi wrote:
>>
>> georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >Jitpring wrote:
>> >(mega snips)
>> >
>> >> >> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
>> >
>> >georgann replied:
>> >> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
>> >> > Asking for truth without pride.
>> >> > Then accepting the answers.
>> >
>> >August XXi wrote:
>> >> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she
>is
>> >> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
>> >
>> >georgann again:
>> >And now I understand, August, why you are so determinedly tracking,
>> >luring and taunting Kelly to come back. Some "big boys" only want to
>> >poke at softer targets.
>>
>> Kelly asks for every taunt she receives. I didn't ask her to come back, I
>> never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
>> came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names
>harrassing
>> people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
>> pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
>>
>> I don't even know what you mean by calling Kelly "soft," that's not a word
>I
>> would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe you.
>
>Precisely. You rather enjoy picking on Kelly and pointing out her
>vunerable spots. And you resent the hell our of me because you can't
>find my soft underbelly to do the same.
Oh, I found it all right, LOL !!
I don't "enjoy picking on Kelly" so much as I enjoy pointing-out liars and
hypocrites and holding up mirrors in front of them. I'm an equal-opportunity
picker-on-er that way. I was happy when Kelly said she was gone for good,
although I knew, as well as everyone else, that she couldn't stay away. When
she proved us all right, and popped back up again, I couldn't resist whacking
the mole! I've seen you whack a few too, you proud, proud Christian!
>> And I'm not a very big boy, I'm kind of scrawny these days.
>>
>> But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to think pride
>goes
>> against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
>
>You haven't the foggiest idea what sinful pride is do you? You only know
>the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to be
>humble before God.
So try it sometime, Georgann. Let's see you be humble before your God. You
think he's proud of your behavior on this newsfroup? You think he sees you as
not sinning with us? You're such a Christian and all, why not be like Jesus
and practice humility. Whatever happened to the meek inheriting the earth, and
all that? You can be a great spokesperson for your religion in ways other than
gloating, lecturing, judging, scolding, and boasting of your power and
knowledge. You're a bully, honey. Admit it. You always have to have your
way, and you stamp your pretty little feet when you don't get it. (I'm
assuming your feet are pretty and small. Don't interpret that as me calling
you soft or just a girl or anything.)
>And to be humble before God is to accept truth. It
>has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
>of it.
Says you. And you ain't nobody, is you? Jesus said otherwise, or so I hear.
Nobody is expecting you to be a door mat. I think you have power struggle
issues, Georgann. You appear to be using your religion to stand up to "the big
boys" as you put it. I also think you've got a little anger directed at men.
Something about a past relationship when your ex wouldn't let you have your
way, wasn't it? Is this a pattern in your life with guys? Have a bad daddy
relationship too? You might want to look into therapy. Or find a meaner
religion. The irony is that the Christian religion isn't supposed to be as
macho as you make it out to be. It's very feminine in ideology, and that just
chaps your hide, doesn't it? Jesus had a little sugar in his pants, I think.
>In the secular world's view humility has come to mean passivity. But I
>can point out some real doozies that use passivity to manipulate the
>tweet out of folks. I can think on one in here right off. And I bet you
>know exactly who I mean by theat. You call that not being prideful?
I don't know who you mean. Who are you talking about? I can't think of a
single passive regular poster on artd-l. You know, implying things about
someone but not naming them is a little something called "passive aggressive"
and a classic way of manipulating people - or another way of being prideful,
right? So come clean..name names. Prove you're not too proud on this day
before your savior's birthday.
August
waxingmoon
Wrong..I've always melted into the background. My whole life I've been an
introvert.
I don't mind having friends and getting that kind of attention, but you're
wrong if you think I need to
be hated. I only came here because of my revelation about DL. I never came
here
disguised as anyone, when I returned, I knew full well that I would be
discovered.
that's not such a big deal.
As for Martha...she's gotten nastier by the minute here as everyone lets her
get away
with it.
She was called on it. I suspect she can take it if I can.
| >
| > I don't even know what you mean by calling Kelly "soft," that's not a
word I
| > would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe you.
|
| Precisely. You rather enjoy picking on Kelly and pointing out her
| vunerable spots. And you resent the hell our of me because you can't
| find my soft underbelly to do the same.
I finally found out today what's been going on....someone, I won't say who,
has been having lots of
private email discussions...It seems someone has the gay people here
thinking I'm a homophobe.
That's where all the attacks have been coming from.
As usual the one guy who follows me around from NG to NG and emails people,
found the sore spot,
It's an exhausting story...and I'm not up to explaining, but thanks for the
defense, although
before it's over, you'll regret it.
|
| > And I'm not a very big boy, I'm kind of scrawny these days.
| >
| > But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to think
pride goes
| > against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
|
| You haven't the foggiest idea what sinful pride is do you? You only know
| the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to be
| humble before God. And to be humble before God is to accept truth. It
| has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
| of it.
|
August XXi
The difference is, those things CAN be known. They exist and can be proved to
exist. Not knowing how they work just means you are ignorant of the physics.
Prove there is any physics to the existence of a god, and a lot of heathen ears
may perk up.
August
August XXi
Not on Usenet, dear, and that is what we are talking about.
[snip]
I cannot speak for anyone else, and have no idea who is emailing whom. But I
just want to state here that I pledge, on all I care about, on everyone's life
that I love, that not one single person has ever emailed me to ever speak of
your beliefs, your opinion of homosexuals, and not one person has ever informed
me of anything confidential about you or given me any information aboout you at
all.
The only email exception would be that very early in your tenure on the
newsgroup, after our first skirmish, one person emailed me with the information
that you apparently have a reputation on Usenet as a loose cannon, and
recommended that I play it cool with you. We didn't discuss you further, and I
disregarded his advice. I have not discussed you with anyone else since that
time in email, as far as I remember.
I have no information about you other than that which you have given us,
yourself. I learned of the JenJen6 name in one of your own posts on this
newsfroup.
You make your own problems, Kelly. Stop blaming everybody else.
August
georgann
> >You haven't the foggiest idea what sinful pride is do you? You only know
> >the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to be
> >humble before God.
August XXi wrote:
> So try it sometime, Georgann. Let's see you be humble before your God. You
> think he's proud of your behavior on this newsfroup? You think he sees you as
> not sinning with us? You're such a Christian and all, why not be like Jesus
> and practice humility. Whatever happened to the meek inheriting the earth, and
> all that? You can be a great spokesperson for your religion in ways other than
> gloating, lecturing, judging, scolding, and boasting of your power and
> knowledge. You're a bully, honey. Admit it. You always have to have your
> way, and you stamp your pretty little feet when you don't get it. (I'm
> assuming your feet are pretty and small. Don't interpret that as me calling
> you soft or just a girl or anything.)
Georgann:
> >And to be humble before God is to accept truth. It
> >has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
> >of it.
August XXi wrote:
> Says you. And you ain't nobody, is you? Jesus said otherwise, or so I hear.
> Nobody is expecting you to be a door mat. I think you have power struggle
> issues, Georgann. You appear to be using your religion to stand up to "the big
> boys" as you put it. I also think you've got a little anger directed at men.
> Something about a past relationship when your ex wouldn't let you have your
> way, wasn't it? Is this a pattern in your life with guys? Have a bad daddy
> relationship too? You might want to look into therapy. Or find a meaner
> religion. The irony is that the Christian religion isn't supposed to be as
> macho as you make it out to be. It's very feminine in ideology, and that just
> chaps your hide, doesn't it? Jesus had a little sugar in his pants, I think.
Georgann:
> >In the secular world's view humility has come to mean passivity. But I
> >can point out some real doozies that use passivity to manipulate the
> >tweet out of folks. I can think on one in here right off. And I bet you
> >know exactly who I mean by theat. You call that not being prideful?
August XXi wrote:
> I don't know who you mean. Who are you talking about? I can't think of a
> single passive regular poster on artd-l. You know, implying things about
> someone but not naming them is a little something called "passive aggressive"
> and a classic way of manipulating people - or another way of being prideful,
> right? So come clean..name names. Prove you're not too proud on this day
> before your savior's birthday.
Georgann:
You don't know Jesus. You have shown you don't understand Christianity.
You obviously do not know me. And you don't know what passive aggressive
means. Guess this conversation is pretty much over.
--- Going to Praise God for His Blessings tonight, even yours! ---
August XXi
Praise him for letting me find your soft spot so easily.
August
Martha Hughes
waxingmoon <waxin...@freedom.net> wrote in message
news:qbR84.1351$fH.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> | >
> | > But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to think
> pride goes
> | > against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
> |
> | the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to be
> | has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
> | of it.
> |
> | can point out some real doozies that use passivity to manipulate the
> | tweet out of folks. I can think on one in here right off. And I bet you
> | know exactly who I mean by theat. You call that not being prideful?
>
email. That, I consider to be one of the worst violations on the internet.
You have called me on NOTHING, Kelly. You have called yourself on the fact
that you haven't the decency to announce yourself in a mannerly, adult way.
You have to flame people under a different name. When you flamed me, I had
no idea it was you. Had I known, I would have done things a bit differently.
Martha Hughes
August XXi <augu...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:19991224162051...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
>
>
Everything in here that Kelly says (Ii can't speak about her personal life)
blames someone else. It's everyone else's fault, poor Kelly.
>
>
>
>
chasbas
Leah Tilden <Dor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23074-386...@storefull-165.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Now *that* is an answer. I for one find your answer meaningful and
logical - two of the highest compliments I pay. I would never seek to
interfere in any way with your faith, to make you justify it or explain it
more than this.
Interestingly, the net result of your faith as you've explained it here is
some of what I strive for myself: humility, peace, generosity. These things
are worth cultivating, whatever fertilizer you use.
Thanks for the post.
chas
Bushman
Neutrodyne <neutr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991224122625...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
No offense, but I am so grateful to have left all that sort of reasoning
behind, and in the next 30 years, never found a reason to go back to it.
Thanks for the reminder and it is nice we can both be happy in our own
beliefs.
Bushman
>
chasbas
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message .
>georgann:
>It means when God spoke it was the beginning. (When God speaks
>Scientists listen.)
Some scientists (again we see the strange capitalization phenomenon) do
believe in god. That is a personal belief, and hopefully does not affect
their work.
[snip worthless explanations]
All the rest of the stuff you explained was *interpretation* of non-specific
words used in a poetic context after being translated to a different
language. Is it possible there is some room there for interpretive error or
disagreement? If so, why should I believe your particular interpretation?
>I was referring to ICONS. Icons are pictures that mean very specific
>things. Like the picture of a THRONE.
Then why did you call them "word pictures", when what you mean is
"pictures?" I responded to 1) the poetry you quoted followed immediately by
your signature and 2) the text:
> georgann
> --- knows full well that words have meaning ---
> --- so do word pictures ---
Naturally I assumed that by "word picture" you were referring to the poetry
you had quoted just above. Now you say you were referring to "icons," which
are clearly pictures and and not word pictures, and were not even part of
the discussion. Once again you write and the English language suffers.
>Words often change meanings
>depending on the times and the places and the connotations in which they
>are used.
Isn't that exactly what I said when I wrote:
>>"Words" have specific meanings in context and are not
>>subject to interpretation (except insofar as their meanings have changed
>>from the writer's original understanding).
>I was also taking a pop at the artDL math department who have
>concurred together that an infinite faction and a finite whole number
>are identical. The pictures say they are wrong and they are using words
>to go absolutely nowhere in refutting this obvious inequality.
God I wish you would stop with this math stuff. You sound so ridiculous
when you make these scientific pronouncements. You keep making the same
claims about mathematics but you never address the responses I make to you.
You have no mathematical background (that much is clear) and yet you make
sweeping statements like "an infinite f[r]action and a finite whole number
[cannot be] identical." What theorum did you use to develop this? What
mathematical principle is in use here? If you tell me "it's common sense"
then you're not using mathematics, and you have no credibility. The fact
is, there are many mathematical facts that are counter intuitive - that is,
they run counter to "common sense."
Additionally, as I explained and you ignored before, 1 is also an "infinite
fraction" (BTW, there is no such concept in mathematics, although I know
what you're trying to say). Just because the final digits in 1.0~ are "0",
that doesn't mean the number isn't infinite. We call it a whole number to
indicate that all the digits after the decimal point are zero, but that's
just a naming convention. Therefore, there's no inherent logical problem in
stating that 0.9~ = 1.0~. If you want to be taken seriously, address that.
chas
Bushman
<wild...@trial.freedom.net> wrote in message
news:s67eafo...@corp.supernews.com...
> | Bushman wrote:
> | > I read Jitpring's questions and wondered who would want to tackle
them.
> | > Predictably, Georgann took up the challenge. And now I wonder why she
> | > bothered going point for point ...........snip............. It reeks
of
> irrational thought.
> |
> | Georgann responded:
> | That's cause God's draws us closer with the heart. It not a head thing.
>
> Goergann...there will NEVER be a satisfactory answer for Bushie. He's
made
> up his mind.
> Did you notice the slant to the questions from Jitz?
>
>
>
Kel - what I believe brings me peace of mind. What you believe seems to have
unhinged you. I simply see no convincing reason to believe anything you
believe. I've read the bible, heard the sermons, looked at the "evidence" -
nothing. In fact, studying other cultures and their religions has convinced
me it is human nature to make up whatever it wants in order to answer
questions about our existence, and the xian myths are just one more result.
But, as long as it makes you happy.....
Bushman
Leah Tilden
stuff is a lot harder! 8-)
LT
Bushman
>
> Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:841430$9p3$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> How can it make me happy when I still have questions? I'm not even sure I
> could classify myself as Christian
> at this point. Haven't I made that clear? I just see no reason for the
> constant bashing.
> You never let up Bushman. Never.
I was under the impression I could post my own beliefs here, same as you or
anyone else.
Bushman
Dr. Doright
is
> one?
no fair, mr. jitspring. you can't ask all the questions.
you need to supply some answers too.
1) how did carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms
start combining into self-replicating chains of extremely
complex molecules?
2) how did this process continue to the point that those
chains of molecules became self-aware organisms that
could wonder about how they came to be and to what
purpose they might be destined?
3) how could a simple philosopher born in the backwater
of the roman empire some 2000 years ago gain a following
of some 3 billion plus people?
--
Dr. Doright
waxingmoon
August XXi <augu...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:19991224162051...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
| "waxingmoon" waxin...@freedom.net wrote:
|
| >| August XXi wrote:
| >| >
| >| > georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
| >| >
| >| > >> >Jitpring wrote:
| >| > >(mega snips)
| >| > >
| >truth?
| >| > >
No...Cyn brought it up. She mentioned Jenjen6..not me! At LEAST be
accurate.
I've gotten emails about you too August. I'm not out to make trouble though.
I suppose lots of backstabbing
going on.
As for making my own trouble....my past should be the past. I remember
being scolded harshly for bringing
up a post of Infidel in another group. I was told to keep "that trash" out
of this group.
Double standard maybe.
|
|
|
|
waxingmoon
Martha Hughes <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:840vo4$gnh$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...| news:qbR84.1351$fH.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Martha...you wish people dead, make fun of their religion, pride yourself in
being
a royal bitch.
As for private email, get over it. Apparently, a lot of emailing goes on.
I'd rather be flamed
than gossiped about.
There is nothing lower than someone who pretends to be nice, but does dirt
BEHIND your back.
At least you know where you stand with me.
|
|
|
waxingmoon
|
| August XXi <augu...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
| news:19991224162051...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
| > "waxingmoon" waxin...@freedom.net wrote:
| >
| >
| >
life)
| blames someone else. It's everyone else's fault, poor Kelly.
Cyn did bring up that username Martha, just thought I would point that out.
As for blaming, yes, sometimes
things are other people's fault. Just cause your paranoid doesn't mean
everyone is
not out to get you.
Slight attempt at humor, but some truth to it.
It's human nature to pick at the person of the moment. Observe Clinton.
He was picked on, even though he had done something wrong, he was railroaded
pure and simple.
The "picked on" kid at school....is HE at fault?
People are provoked into things they would ordinarily never do, every day.
Things that are out of character.
Victims do exist and my life is way too good to be a victim, but do I think
I've not been measured with the same stick as others here? You bet.
Will I get over it? yep.
Do I understand it completely? No, I never will.
But i'll survive...I may get even. Depends on how far this is taken.
Now, let's see if someone will claim I'm raving. Funny how many times
the regulars have posted their feelings and gotten away with it.
I'm not raving...I'm merely talking. You'll know when I start to rave.
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
waxingmoon
Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:841430$9p3$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
|
| <wild...@trial.freedom.net> wrote in message
| news:s67eafo...@corp.supernews.com...
| >
| >
| >
|
| Bushman
|
|
|
Dr. Charlie
neutr...@aol.com (Neutrodyne) writes:
>>Subject: Questions for the Believer
>>From: Jitpring jitp...@earthlink.net
>>Date: Wed, 22 December 1999 04:54 PM EST
>>Message-id: <386148...@earthlink.net>
>>
>Hello, can 'o worms....
I guess Neut didn't feel comfortable giving the Tezcatlipocan answers to these
questions and decided to give the answers for his second religion,
Christianity, instead. I will provide the Tezcatlipocan answers.
>>1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
>>one?
I define him according to the sacred scriptures and by what he tells me
personally. Tezcalipoca is the omnipotent creator God who controls human fate.
He has been known to delegate authority over smaller things (like the weather)
to Gods underneath him. In nature he is arbitrary, capricious, mocking, a
sower of discord, uncaring, aloof and generally looks down on humans as
playthings he created for his amusement--just the sort of attitude you would
expect from an omnipotent God to whom we are insignificant.
>>2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
Begging the question...logical fallacy. No answer.
>>3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
This is another example of begging the question: Who said
Tezcatlipoca can't be described? Did I not just describe him in my answer
to the first question? Did I not post an url to a picture of what he
looks like?
>>4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to be
>>the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
Because it makes more sense than any other religion--i.e. freer of
contradictions--and because it is the only religon practised everywhere in
the world, even by non-believers, even by atheists such as yourself. Do you
not follow the Way of Tezcatlipoca when you mock Tina and do what you feel
like, even if you don't realize that you are acting according to his wishes?
You do these things because He made it our nature to desire to imitate Him.
Also because I have seen undeniable evidence of Tezcatlipoca acting in my life
and the life of other people on this ng. Weren't you around for the weekend
when everybody inexplicably started turning on each other?
>>5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
Right in what they claim, no, but other gods do exist. Tezcatlipoca,
however, is supreme over all of them. Tezcatlipoca tolerates, even desires the
existence of, these other gods and religions for reasons I have stated
elsewhere.
>>6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how do
>>you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
They're wrong.
>>7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
>>if any, is the right one?
It was settled for me when Tezcatlipoca revealed himself to me, divinely
inspiring me to create the 1HASCCoSTotI. For the rest see response to
>>8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
1). They amuse him. 2.) He doesn't especially care who we worship or if we
worship at all. He still controls our lives.
>>9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
>>supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
>>consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
Neither. Human nature is to blame not Christianity. Tezcatlipoca made it our
nature to fight among ourselves, so that we provide amusement for him. That
Christian teachings have failed to overcome this is just more evidence
that the Christian god is inferior to Tezcatlipoca. Incidentally the
Christian god, with his insecurity complex is a constant source of amusement
for Tezcatlipoca, always running around claiming he's the true god, saying,
"Worship me! worship me! Look I sacrificed my son for you! C'mon dammit,
worship me! Please?" He's a riot!
>>10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
>>benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
>>suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
>>go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at His
>>goal?
What the hell are you talking about with this benevolent creator business?
Goal? The only goal Tezcatlipoca has for us is to entertain him! He likes
to watch sex and violence, just like most American movie goers.
> >12) Why should one零 inner convictions about the existence of God
>>indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person零 mind?
Because the hypothesis explains observed behavior, just like with the
Theory of Gravity. How do you explain all the things you noted in the previous
question?
>>14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
You're assuming that God is rational. I'd say that counts as another
error in your logic.
>>15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He
>>created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
N/A I thought these questions were open to people of all faiths, but they seem
to reflect that you think Christianity is the only religion that matters. Are
you a closet Christian in denial or just some kind of bigot?
>>16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
Knowledge and truth about what? You've failed to make yourself clear.
One can only know Tezcatlipoca through what he reveals of himself, just as one
can only know a Usenet poster through what he chooses to reveal of himself. My God
does not exist to satify Jipring's curiousity, and it is arrogant of Jitpring
to think that he does or should. If you are not satisfied that Tezcatlipoca
has not revealed enough of himself for you to believe in him, fine. He doesn't
care whether you believe in him or not. He evidently finds you more
amusing to him as a callow, supercilious, and hypocritical atheist.
>>17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
>>contradictory faiths in the world?
I already answered this question: Because it provides discord, which is a
source of amusement for Tezcatlipoca.
>>18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
I don't see the pertinence of that question.
>>19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
Tezcatlipoca himself telling me that he doesn't exist. I have a question for
you: Why is convincing people that they are wrong so important to you? Is this
how you get into atheist heaven, converting people to your faith?
>>20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your
>>faith be considered anything other than a cult?
I don't care what you consider my faith. Take it or leave it. But the next
time you have a nasty string of bad luck maybe you'll start to wonder...Is
Tezcatlipoca messing with you?
>>21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
>>compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
Tezcatlipoca is neither loving nor compassionate and, as I've said before, he
doesn't care if you decide to believe in him or not. Individually we mean
nothing to him.
>>22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
>>disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the
>>first place?
Because it is Tezcatlipoca's nature to cause disasters. They amuse him. I'm
getting tired of repeating myself for you.
>>23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are
>>you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
>>other ancient gods and goddesses?
N/A
>>25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old
>>Testament still a loving God?
N/A
>>26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
>>trusted?
You have to accept that what I'm telling you is the divine revelation of
Tezcatlipoca. If you don't trust me, don't join my religion. But don't get
some savior complex going that you've got to save the people who have chosen
to trust me. They're adults, they can make up their own minds. And I think
you should respect that.
>>27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
>>everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
>>other than evil?
N/A
>>28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
>>consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
I don't see any conflict.
>>29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
>>Christians? (Luke 14:26)
N/A
>>30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
>>Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
>>humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
N/A It isn't.
>>31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
>>slavery and war?
N/A
>>32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
>>many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation
>>in Genesis?
N/A
>>33) Why isn靖 the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no
>>doubt about what it means?
N/A
>>34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the
>>Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
>>fundamentalists today?
N/A However I would like to point out that this question shows either an
ignorance of history so abysmal it staggers the mind or a deliberate attempt
to distort facts in an effort to further an agenda of hate-mongering
against a particular group of people.
Historians generally place the so-called "Dark Ages" (better known as
Early Middle Ages) between 500-1000 AD. In the period 1475-1525 AD
Christianity was embraced by a larger percentage of the population over a
greater area of Europe than it ever was at any time in the period 500-1000 AD.
Yet the period 1475-1525 AD coincides with the apogee of the Renaissance, a
period of keen interest in rational inquiry that led directly to the
Scientific Revolution. If Christianity is as evil and repressive as you
suggest, how do you explain that?
> I wasn't aware that Christainity alone or even in the majority was
>responsible for the dark ages. Few events of that size are so simply explained.
>Perhaps Dr. Charlie, who has considerably more expertise on this era than I
>could help us out.
It's too complex a question for me Neut. I wouldn't even try to answer it.
But why don't you ask history expert Jitpring to explain how all those waves
of barbarians contributed to the collapse of the Western Roman empire
and the almost total breakdown of civilization? Christians actually saved
Western civilization, Neut. One example: Literacy dropped to nothing. The main
reason anybody remembered how to read at all, or bothered to teach others, was
the Christian need to read the Bible.
> I would say that believing that a few Christian Fundamntalists in todays
>political scene, in our one country could bring back the Dark Ages would
>require a faith in improbable and aparantly miraculous events that dwarfs any I
>can imagine.
Touche'
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
Waiting to celebrate Toxcatl
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
Dr. Doright <drdo...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:CxP84.2478$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
there
> is
> > one?
>
> no fair, mr. jitspring. you can't ask all the questions.
> you need to supply some answers too.
>
> 1) how did carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms
> start combining into self-replicating chains of extremely
> complex molecules?
>
Take a chemistry course. There are limits to the ways in which
elements can combine.
If your argument is that the complexity of strands of DNA could not
have occurred through such processes, then you must explain why there
are so many mistakes, redundancies, and useless portions in every
person's DNA. Nature is wonderful but it is also grossly imperfect and
varied beyond the dictates of simple functionality.
> 2) how did this process continue to the point that those
> chains of molecules became self-aware organisms that
> could wonder about how they came to be and to what
> purpose they might be destined?
>
Self-awareness is necessary in order to provide flexibility of
response to the environment. It occurs because a portion of the brain
is capable of monitoring the results of other mental processes
performed outside of conscious awareness. The process of becoming
self-aware is explained by mechanisms of evolution, because conscious
awareness provides such a considerable survival advantage over
organisms that must respond to whatever occurs in their environment
through fixed behavior patterns. The "wondering" is the result of the
manner of representation of past experience that occurs in memory. As
a result of the capacity to mentally represent past experience, we are
able to attach meaning to symbols. These symbols (or mental
representations) permit us to not only recall the past but also to
imagine things we have not previously experienced and to project
ourselves into a future. With the recognition of future possibilities
comes the ability to form goals. Goals lead to purpose and to ideas
about the purposes of others, including an imagined God. These
capacities to form goals and to imagine the mind states of others
permit us to interact in complex social organizations where we
cooperate with others. That ability to cooperate with others is
another source of survival advantage and can be clearly seen as an
extension of the social abilities of animals.
> 3) how could a simple philosopher born in the backwater
> of the roman empire some 2000 years ago gain a following
> of some 3 billion plus people?
>
The same way Bruce Springsteen attracts his audience. People, as
social beings, are equipped to be leaders and followers. Given that
they are also seekers of meaning and creators of fantasy, the
endowment of some minor figure with larger-than-life significance is
hardly surprising. If you believe there is anything special about
that simple philosopher, you would do better to ask why there is not
only one such simple philosopher with a following today. Instead
there are many, including Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and others
without followings but whose names are equally well known because of
their impact on their contemporaries.
Brien Sullivan
>>Subject: Questions for the Believer
>>From: Jitpring jitp...@earthlink.net
Wonderful dialogue snipped
> You have from me sincere answers to a list of questions. I wonder if you
>spent as much time thinking of the questions as I did on the answers, or if
>they are not just an old series of traps I haven't run across before. I chose
>to respond in good faith, and you are free to pick the answers apart any way
>you wish, to laugh or ridicule as you choose. I found it a good evercise, but I
>am no expert, not an educated sort. Perhaps I am blissfully ignorant, perhaps
>not. I hope some good results for someone from this effort.
>Neutrodyne
Thanks, Neut, for a lot of reminders of why I believe.
Aside from those from my wife and children, this is one
of the lovliest gifts I'll get this season.
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
elepha...@my-deja.com
Classes.
As a matter of fact, I think I'll do just that, as "Elephant Man" the
sockpuppet, and see if the class can come up with scriptural answers!
~Dankeschon~ Jitpring.
___________________________________a straightline____________
jitp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> 1) How would you define God,
_______________
"And they cried one to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD
of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."
(Isaiah 6:3)
___________________
>and why are you so convinced that there
is
> one?
_______________
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork." "Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
knowledge." "There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not
heard."
(Psalm 19:1-3)
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
(Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1:20)
________________________________________________
> 2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
________________________________________
God is not a "creature" (created thing) He is the Creator, the
beginning.
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me
there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
(The Book of Isaiah 43:10)
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." "The same was in the beginning with God"
(Gospel of John 1:1,2)
(Word made flesh on the first Christmas;)
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth." (Gospel of John 1:14)
__________________________________________________________
> 3) How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?
_____________________________________
He can be described to the extent of the information He has allowed us
to have.
"GOD, who at sundry times, and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets," "Hath in these last days spoken unto us
by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by who also he
made the worlds;"
(Hebrews 1:1,2)
_____________________________________________________
> 4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming to
be
> the one true religion, why do you think yours is truer than theirs?
__________________________________________
What is their "batting average" (prophetical success)
"Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD,
and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their
lightness: yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall
not profit this people at all, saith the LORD."
(Jeremiah 23:32)
_____________________________________________________
> 5) Can more than one of these religions be right?
_________
Only if Jesus Christ is a liar. (or a lunatic)
"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father but by me.'"
(Gospel of John 14:6)
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman."
(Gospel of John 15:1)
"He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth."
(Gospel of Luke 11:23)(Matthew 12:30)
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the
way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat:" "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
(Gospel of Matthew 7:13,14)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life." "I am that bread of life."
(Gospel of John 6:47,48)
...and after the famous John 3:16 follows;
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that
the world through him might be saved." "He that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God."
(Gospel of John 3:17,18)
Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Old Testament:
Referring to Psalm 110:1;
"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,"
"Saying, 'What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?' They say unto him,
'The son of David'" "He saith unto them, 'How then doth David in
spirit call him Lord, saying," "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on
my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" "If David then
call him Lord; how is he his son?"
"And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from
that day forth ask him any more questions."
(Gospel of Matthew, 22:41-46) and (Luke 20:40-44)
"Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am."
(The Gospel of John 8:58)
Old Testament God, who Christ claims to be:
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
(Isaiah 43:11)
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of
hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no
God."
(Isaiah 44:6)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none
else; I am God, and there is none like me,"
(Isaiah 46:9)
________________________________________________________________
> 6) If you feel in your heart that your religion is the right one, how
do
> you answer those of other faiths who claim the same thing?
__________________________
We witness as COMMANDED by Christ. We present the gospel. It is up
to God to change their hearts.
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth
me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."
(Christ's words, The Gospel of Luke 10:16)
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day."
"And he said, 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.'"
(Gospel of John 6:44,65)
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh."
(Ezekiel 36:26) ...this refers to the Chosen, but we former Gentiles
are now also claiming to be among the Chosen, as adopted heirs graffed
in with all the rights of the first (Romans 8:14-23)
_____________________________________________________________
> 7) How do you settle the debate and find out which of these religions,
> if any, is the right one?
_____________________________
see above, God settles the debate.
____________________________________________________________
> 8) Why does God allow all these false religions to exist?
____________________________
You are never without a choice, ... ~for now~ ...
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day."
(Christ's words, The Gospel of John 12:48)
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the
books, according to their works."
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire."
(The Revelation of St.John the Divine 20:12,15)
_______________________________________________________________
> 9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
> supposed to be a religion of love, or does it simply illustrate the
> consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
______________________________
Religion of love, ...only?
What about religion of Judgement, ...also...
What about justice!
What about defending the faith?
"Then said he (Christ) unto them, 'But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment and buy one."
(The Gospel of Luke 22:36)
_____________________________________________________________
> 10) If everything is the product of a grand design by an omniscient,
> benevolent designer, why is the history of life a record of horrible
> suffering, blundering waste, and miserable failures? Why does this God
> go through billions of years of such carnage without yet arriving at
His
> goal?
_______________________
First of all I am not so sure about the "billions of years" Modern
dating methods have experienced some huge discrepencies (rocks less than
200 yrs old in the form of hardened lava flow produced estimated ages as
great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years;
John G. Funkhouser, et al., "The Problems of Dating Volcanic Rocks by
the Potassiom-Argon Methods," Bulletin Volcanologigue, Vol 29 (1966),
p.709
John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in
Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol
73,No.14 (July 15, 1968), pp. 4601-4607 (especially p. 4604) (volcanic
eruption of 1800 on Hualalai Island, Hawaii, produced rocks which
falsely "dated" 160 million to 3 billion years)
C. Noble and Jon=hn J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content
and Uncertainties in Age Dating," Science, Vol. 162 (October 11, 1968),
p.265
William Laughlin, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Pegmatite Minerals,"
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No.27 (December 15, 1969),
p.6684
----------
Now, with that being said, the question of suffering remains.
Is there anybody left in all of usenet that is not informed about how
the "fall-of-man" caused sin and death to enter into the world?
I know that most unbelievers find this to be a very unsatisfactory
answer, so I shall attempt to dwell on it here.
The first option is that God could have created ~nothing~
But He did create, and what He created was good;
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:12)
Another option is that God could have created a world without free
creatures;
He could have inhabited the world with only animals and robots to do His
will. That is not much different from the "no-creation-option" It's
still a 'non-moral' existance. (good compared to what?)
__________________
God could have created free creatures that would not sin;
It is logically possible. Adam didn't sin until the fall. Jesus lived
his whole human life without sin;
"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"
(1st Peter 2:22)
"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye
not believe me?"
(Christ's words, Gospel of John 8:46)
~And~ the Bible says that there will someday be a world in heaven where
everyone has free will but there won't be any sin;
"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw
like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."
(Isaiah 65:25)
So, there is no problem with the idea of such a world, but not
everything that is logically possible becomes actually real. (Hitler
could have been a monk, but that is not what actually happened)
It is conceivable that free creatures would never sin, but getting it to
happen is another matter. How could God have guaranteed that they would
never sin?
One way would be to tamper with their freedom. He could have set up
some mechanism so that just when they were about to choose evil, a
distraction would come along to change their decision. And who is to
say He does not have such a mechanism in place?
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but
God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are
able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye
may be able to bear it."
(Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 10:13)
Of course, He could have programmed creatures to do only good things.
But are such creatures really free? It's hard to call a choice free if
it was programmed so that there was no alternative.
But if actions were merely diverted from doing evil, it follows that
there must have been the evil option available from which the good
option was diverted.
"Beyond all this, a world of freedom without evil would actually be
morally inferior to the present world. In this world that we live in,
men are challenged to do good and noble things to overcome evil. The
highest virtues and the greatest pleasures are impossible to achieve if
there is not opposition as a precondition. Courage can only occur where
there is a real fear of danger. Self-sacrifice is only noble where is a
need and an opposing selfishness to overcome."
Geisler and Brooks, "When Skeptics Ask" Baker Books 1996
______________________
And you ask what's taking so long to achieve His goal;
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts."
"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation."
(2nd Peter 3:3,4)
However;
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance."
(2nd Peter 3:8,9)
_________________________________________
> 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
> antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
> Holocaust of the Second World War?
________________________________________
Within less than ten years the Nazis were smashed.
_____________________________________________________
> 12) Why should one零 inner convictions about the existence of God
> indicate that He/She/They/It exists outside of that person零 mind?
_______________________________________
I'm not sure I understand the question. Does God exist outside my
mind? (if your "He/She/They/It" refers to God)
God exists outside my mind. Case in point: He was reported long
before I came along.
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according
to the scriptures;"
"And that he was seen of Ce'-phas, then of the twelve:"
"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom
the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time."
"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
...(Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 15:3-9)
________________________________________________________
> 13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the
> most still be considered all good?
___________________________
That is a subjective assumption.
God disagrees;
"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with
such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor
forsake thee."
(Hebrews 13:5)
How often have his children abandoned him?
"BEHOLD, the LORD's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither
his ear heavy, that it cannot hear."
"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your
sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."
(Isaiah 59:1,2)
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered the
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not!"
(Christ's pleas, The Gospel of Matthew 23:37)
____________________________________________________________________
> 14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
________________________
No, atheism should not be believed.
______________________________________________________________
> 15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that
He
> created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
____________________________________
God made everything ...evil is something ...therefore God made evil.
God made everything perfect ...One of the perfect things God made was
free creatures ...Free will is the cause of evil.
So, imperfection (evil) can arise from perfection (not directly, but
indirectly through freedom)
Freedom is good.
Freedom implies the choice to do good, but requires the alternative to
do evil.
God created the fact of freedom.
We perform the acts of freedom.
God therefore made evil possible.
But his creations (men and angels) made evil actual.
So why doesn't God do anything about evil?
If God is all good, He will defeat evil.
If God is all powerful, He can defeat evil.
Evil is not yet defeated.
Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil:
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I will make all things
new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and
faithful."
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of
the water of life freely."
"He that overcometh shall inherit all things: and I will be his God, and
he shall be my son."
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which
is the second death."
(The Revelation of St.John the Divine 21:5-8)
_________________________________________________
> 16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
________________________
Yes. True information.
(truth is truth whether there is reasoning behind it at all. What is,
is. Truth is independent of knowledge)
____________________________________________________
> 17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many
> contradictory faiths in the world?
N/A
______________________________________________
> 18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
_______________________
Goes both ways.
____________________________________________________
> 19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
__________________________
Goes both ways.
_______________________________________________________
> 20) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should
your
> faith be considered anything other than a cult?
________________________________
Still goes both ways.
________________________________________________________
> 21) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
> compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
___________________________________
Does that decent, moral life amount to perfection?
God disagrees.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
(Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3:23)
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us."
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
not in us."
(The 1st Epistle of John 1:8-10)
"The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if
there were any that did understand, and seek God."
"They are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy: there is
none that doeth good, no, not one."
(Psalm 14:3) also (Psalm 53:3)
________
Can't we go around God. Do good deeds, be good citizens, etc?
Can't we be righteous without ~HIM~
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to
establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of God."
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that
believeth."
(Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10:3,4)
"But we are as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as
filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the
wind, have taken us away."
(Isaiah 64:6)
God wants us to accept His righteousness;
"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before
mine eyes; cease to do evil;"
"Learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow,"
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins
be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like
crimson, they shall be as wool."
(Isaiah 1:16-18)
"I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own
sake, and will not remember thy sins."
(Isaiah 43:25)
"As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our
transgressions from us."
(Psalm 103:12)
So Christ paid our debt for us, a debt we could not pay. He took the
the punishment for us:
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us."
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from wrath through him."
(Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5:8,9)
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
(Christ's words, The Gospel of Luke 19:10)
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
(1st Epistle of John 4:10)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."
(The Gospel of John 3:16)
***** ***** *****
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with
me."
(Christ's plea, The Revelation of St.John the Divine 3:20)
__________________________________________________________________
> 22) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a
> disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in
the
> first place?
_______________________
They're probably glad they lived. They're still human.
____________________________________________________
> 23) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God,
are
> you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the
> other ancient gods and goddesses?
____________________
On usenet, it's common to challenge someone to "prove-it" when they
"make-a-claim"
You cannot challenge someone when they profess a belief, (unless you're
a mind-reader)
___________________________________________________________
> 24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
> smaller than their numbers in the general population?
___________________
Dunno. Maybe God finally got their attention.
_______________________________________________________
> 25) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the
Old
> Testament still a loving God?
___________________________
Most definately. (probably not from the POV of the bad guys though)
____________________________________________________________--
> 26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be
> trusted?
___________________________
What religion does that?
______________________________________________________________-
> 27) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed
> everybody on Earth except for four people be considered as anything
> other than evil?
____________________________
Actually it was eight people.
"...you kill people?"
"...Yes, but they were all bad"
(Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold Swartsenegger dialogue, "True Lies"
________________
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of the heart was only evil
continually."
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart."
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face
of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls
of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."
(The Book of Genesis 6:5-8)
_____________________________________________________________
> 28) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles
> consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
_____________________________
It was never a problem before. (if you're talking about acceptance of
Christ's grace ..."free salvation")
_____________________________________________________-
> 29) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good
> Christians? (Luke 14:26)
______________________________
You better go back and read the rest of the chapter.
Taken out of context, it does sound quite awful.
Christ was fore-warning them of the cost they might have to pay to
follow him. Like the builder in Luke 14:28,29 or the warmaking king
in Luke 14:31
Are we prepared to forsake our family to follow Christ? It could very
well come to that. Are we ready to forsake our own life and all of
it's pleasures and comforts to follow Christ? It may not be necessary,
but what if, after accepting His righteousness, we get an incredibly
strong urging from His Holy Spirit to sell the 250K house, give up the
lucrative medical practice or whatever, and go to the hot rainforests of
Brazil or Africa to be missionaries. That is exactly the circumstances
of many missionaries.
Consider the certain rich young ruler who thought he was obedient of all
the commandments;
"Jesus said unto him, 'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and
come and follow me."
"But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for
he had great possessions."
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, 'Verily I say unto you, That a rich
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of God."
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who
then can be saved?"
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, 'With men this is
impossible; but with God all things are possible."
*W I T H G O D A L L T H I N G S A R E P O S S I B L E*
(from the Gospel of Matthew 19th chapter and 18th chapter of Luke)
_____________________________________________________________
> 30) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
> Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save
> humanity, why is the Jesus myth any truer than all the others?
_________________
You are repeating question #4
__________________________________________________
> 31) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid
> slavery and war?
______________________________
Why does it not forbid free-will?
Are you referring to justified war and slavery?
Unjustified war is man's doing;
"FROM whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence,
even of your lusts that war in your members?"
"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain:
ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not."
"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it
upon your lusts."
(The Epistle of James 4:1-3)
Unjustified slavery is condemned in 1st Timothy 1:10 (menstealers)
___________________________________________________________
> 32) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
> many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of
Creation
> in Genesis?
__________________________________
Wrong. Chapter one is basically an outline. Chapter two goes into
more detail.
(Don't you think they would have noticed after thousands of years of
studying Genesis?)
______________________________________________________
> 33) Why isn靖 the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves
no
> doubt about what it means?
_______________________________
Is there any doubt that it means Christ is the Saviour?
_____________________________________________________________
> 34) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in
the
> Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
> fundamentalists today?
__________________________
Christianity never attained total power. That won't happen till He
returns.
_________________
Elephant Man
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@curly-tusks@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JohnMOUNT
<386148...@earthlink.net>
>33) Why isnšt the Bible written in a straightforward way >that leaves no doubt
about what it means?
Because it was written by lawyers.
JM
georgann
> >Georgann:
> >> >And to be humble before God is to accept truth. It
> >> >has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers think
> >> >of it.
> >August XXi wrote:
> >> Says you. And you ain't nobody, is you? Jesus said otherwise, or so I hear.
> >> Nobody is expecting you to be a door mat. I think you have power struggle
> >> issues, Georgann. You appear to be using your religion to stand up to "the big
> >> boys" as you put it. I also think you've got a little anger directed at men.
> >> Something about a past relationship when your ex wouldn't let you have your
> >> way, wasn't it? Is this a pattern in your life with guys? Have a bad daddy
> >> relationship too? You might want to look into therapy. Or find a meaner
> >> religion. The irony is that the Christian religion isn't supposed to be as
> >> macho as you make it out to be. It's very feminine in ideology, and that just
> >> chaps your hide, doesn't it? Jesus had a little sugar in his pants, I think.
> >Georgann:
> >You don't know Jesus. You have shown you don't understand Christianity.
> >You obviously do not know me. And you don't know what passive aggressive
> >means. Guess this conversation is pretty much over.
> > --- Going to Praise God for His Blessings tonight, even yours! ---
> August
> Praise him for letting me find your soft spot so easily.
Georgann demurely and meekly replys:
As they say in the deep South, August, "That dog don't hunt!"
Dr. Charlie
>A question I asked awhile ago was: Assuming there exists a being who is
>all-powerful and who created the universe, on what basis does s/he get
>to define morality? I got some thoughtful answers then (a couple by
>email) and I wonder if any of the new artd-l believers have anything to
>say about it.
If he is all powerful, there being no check on his power, he can do whatever
he wants and call it whatever he wants. Hence...Tezcatlipoca.
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
Who just received an inspiration that Tez wants to make HOT SALSA MUSIC part
of his liturgy. Tango anyone?
gift-wrapped_genitals
> I said:
>
> >Kelly asks for every taunt she receives. I didn't ask her to come back, I
> >never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
> >came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names
> >harrassing
> >people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
> >pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
>
> consider Tina like Kelly in any way other than relishing the attention she
> receives in newsgroups. Tina is not mentally ill, and she is a rather pleasant
> person of whom I hold a certain amount of affection. It's fun to tease her,
> and I believe she likes to be teased. She drives me crazy with her illogic,
> her lack of insight and her stubborn refusal to quote correctly, but I like
> her.
I like Tina too. She has, shall we say, a different style of
participation, but I'm pretty sure she's in on her own joke.
====
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
-- Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
gift-wrapped_genitals
> > > > > From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few weeks, she is
> > > > > possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
Georgann replied
> > > > And now I understand, August, why you are so determinedly tracking,
> > > > luring and taunting Kelly to come back. Some "big boys" only want to
> > > > poke at softer targets.
August XXi wrote
> > > Kelly asks for every taunt she receives. I didn't ask her to come back, I
> > > never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good. When she
> > > came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake names harrassing
> > > people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the group, I
> > > pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the attention.
> > >
> > > I don't even know what you mean by calling Kelly "soft," that's not a word I
> > > would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe you.
Georgann answered
> > Precisely. You rather enjoy picking on Kelly and pointing out her
> > vunerable spots. And you resent the hell our of me because you can't
> > find my soft underbelly to do the same.
August XXi wrote
> Oh, I found it all right, LOL !!
>
> I don't "enjoy picking on Kelly" so much as I enjoy pointing-out liars and
> hypocrites and holding up mirrors in front of them. I'm an equal-opportunity
> picker-on-er that way. I was happy when Kelly said she was gone for good,
> although I knew, as well as everyone else, that she couldn't stay away. When
> she proved us all right, and popped back up again, I couldn't resist whacking
> the mole! I've seen you whack a few too, you proud, proud Christian!
<snip>
> Nobody is expecting you to be a door mat. I think you have power struggle
> issues, Georgann. You appear to be using your religion to stand up to "the big
> boys" as you put it. I also think you've got a little anger directed at men.
> Something about a past relationship when your ex wouldn't let you have your
> way, wasn't it? Is this a pattern in your life with guys? Have a bad daddy
> relationship too? You might want to look into therapy. Or find a meaner
> religion. The irony is that the Christian religion isn't supposed to be as
> macho as you make it out to be. It's very feminine in ideology, and that just
> chaps your hide, doesn't it? Jesus had a little sugar in his pants, I think.
Which of us doesn't have issues? I find Georgann as wrong as you do
about some things, but I also find her generally fun to have around.
You're fun to have around, too. I'm easily entertained.
Neutrodyne
>From: "Pogo Possum, Ph.D." pogo...@earthlink.net
>Date: Thu, 23 December 1999 05:28 AM EST
>Message-id: <83tp4u$aeb$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>the
>> Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian
>> fundamentalists today?
>
>invented in Italy around 1100 AD but priests disapproved of its use.
>They said that God gave us fingers to use for anything that couldn't
>be eaten with a spoon. Thus it wasn't until the 18th century that
>there was widespread use of forks along with spoons.
>
>If Christian fundamentalists have their way, anything useful
>discovered by scientists today will be similarly prohibited because it
>is too scary. In Kansas, the state school board restriction that
>created all the furor wasn't just about evolution but was meant to
>exclude all science as a way of knowing about the world. This
>happened because a fundamentalist nut got elected to a position of
>influence.
>
DO you really think anyone today has the kind of sweeping power and influence
over civilization that Italian priests in 1100AD had? Not even Saddam Housein
within his own borders has that kind of powe now....
To ascibe such power to christian fundamentalists in the US is laughable. Too
many cats have left too many bags.
Neutrodyne
Neutrodyne
>Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 02:08 AM EST
>Message-id: <841jhc$ef7$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>>news:8kV84.2495$fH.1...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>anyone else.
>
> Bushman
Bushman is adamant, so am I. I take his comments as his honest opinion feel no
animosity in them. I don't think he's trying to bend you (Kel) to his will any
more than he is trying to do that to me. I know I won't change him. But all of
us who are stroing in our beliefs will tend to state them. DOn't take
confidence and strong will as an attack.
Neutrodyne
Neutrodyne
>Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 02:25 AM EST
>Message-id: <slrn868q8v...@Brien.WatchRock.net>
Why thank you Brien. I am happy to know my time was well spent. Merry
Christnmas to you and yours.
Neutrodyne
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
> >Subject: Re: Questions for the Believer
When the Taliban can forbid women to attend elementary school, yes, I
do believe there is someone with that kind of sweeping power and
influence. It need not be global to be destructive. Fundamentalists
in the US are actively imposing restrictions on health care,
scientific research, what appears in the media, school curriculum,
libraries, women's work and educational opportunities, and child/adult
welfare services. That they are not universally successful in these
efforts is only because they are far from a majority in THIS culture.
It does not mean they cannot become a majority. Nor does it mean they
have no impact in those areas where they are a majority.
If you read history, you will find that it does not consist of one
glorious upward trend toward enlightenment, but rather is a series of
ebbs and flows determined by local conditions. Technological
achievement does not ensure enlightenment, as was clear in Nazi
Germany and in the USSR. Our freedoms here are fragile. Taking them
for granted in the face of an organized and hysterical religious
minority puts them at risk, in my opinion.
I am old enough to remember when women could not have credit ratings,
buy cars, take out business loans or own property separate from their
husbands, could not attend medical school or law school due to
admissions discrimination, were not permitted unaccompanied in many
restaurants or public places, were not dressed respectably unless they
wore skirts, high heels and a girdle, and had no independent access to
birth control or abortion. I see no reason why this country could not
return to such times and restrictions. Women still have no equal
rights ammendment, so nothing guarantees the current social changes
except custom. Times when many women worked (such as the 40s) were
replaced by times when women were thrown out of their jobs (the 50s).
Times when there was sexual freedom (the 20s) were replaced by later
times of restriction. It can all happen again.
We are in the midst of a religious revival and an upsurge in belief in
the paranormal, superstition and spiritualism. If you do not feel it,
it may be because your own beliefs or activities rarely place you in
conflict with the mainstream. That comfort level is the danger
because it permits the taking away of important freedoms without
protest.
Ala67
>neutr...@aol.com (Neutrodyne)
>Date: Fri, 24 December 1999 12:26 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991224122625...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
>>Subject: Questions for the Believer
>>From: Jitpring jitp...@earthlink.net
>>Date: Wed, 22 December 1999 04:54 PM EST
>>Message-id: <386148...@earthlink.net>
>>
>
>Hello, can 'o worms....
>
<responses snipped>
Thanks for an elegantly, beautifully written post. It is the kind of writing
that deepens and enriches my own faith. I have neither the theological
training nor the prose to add all that much to what you've said, but I do want
to add one comment to one of Jitpring's questions, the only one I feel I have
any fund of knowledge upon which to contribute:
>>19) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
As a Jew, questions like that instinctively cause me to recoil. They are the
same kinds of questions that have been asked of Jews time and again. The people
that ask them have, throughout history, have often refused to take "Go Away"
for an answer, preferring instead to add their own form of punctuation to the
question by burning towns, exiling communties and raking rabbis' skin with
metal combs till they bleed to death.
Jitpring, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then nothing--literally,
nothing--will happen to me as a result of my foolishness. There's no need to
worry about the soul that you don't think I have, and there's no need to
venture down the road you're traveling; and if you insist on traversing it,
maybe you should give some thought as to the anti-semetic invective that
history has bestowed on those who've traversed that same road with you, all in
the name of demonstrating to us benighted fools, huddled in our ghettos and
shtetls, the One True Way.
Mitch
Martha Hughes
> | > | August XXi wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > georgann chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > >> >Jitpring wrote:
> | > | > >(mega snips)
> | > | > >
and
> | > truth?
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> > Opening your heart to truth without fear.
> | > | > >> > Asking for truth without pride.
> | > | > >> > Then accepting the answers.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> From what I've read of Georgann's prolific posts the past few
> | weeks,
> | > she is
> | > | > >> possibly one of the most pride-laden posters on this newsfroup.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >And now I understand, August, why you are so determinedly
tracking,
> | > | > >luring and taunting Kelly to come back. Some "big boys" only want
> to
> | > | > >poke at softer targets.
> | > | >
> | back,
> | > I
> | > | > never said a word about her after she said she was gone for good.
> | When
> | > she
> | > | > came back as we all knew she would, under one of her many fake
names
> | > harrassing
> | > | > people like Martha, and spewing her own brand of vitriol at the
> group,
> | I
> | > | > pointed at her and said her name. Like Tina, she lives for the
> | > attention.
> | >
> an
> | > introvert.
> you're
> | > wrong if you think I need to
> | > be hated. I only came here because of my revelation about DL. I never
> | came
> | > here
> | > disguised as anyone, when I returned, I knew full well that I would be
> | > discovered.
> | > that's not such a big deal.
> | > As for Martha...she's gotten nastier by the minute here as everyone
lets
> | her
> | > get away
> | > with it.
> | > She was called on it. I suspect she can take it if I can.
> | > | >
not
> a
> | > word I
> | > | > would ever use to describe her, and it certainly does not describe
> | you.
> | > |
> | > | vunerable spots. And you resent the hell our of me because you can't
> | > | find my soft underbelly to do the same.
> | >
> | who,
> | > has been having lots of
> | > private email discussions...It seems someone has the gay people here
> | > thinking I'm a homophobe.
> | > That's where all the attacks have been coming from.
> | > As usual the one guy who follows me around from NG to NG and emails
> | people,
> | > found the sore spot,
> | > It's an exhausting story...and I'm not up to explaining, but thanks
for
> | the
> | > defense, although
> | > before it's over, you'll regret it.
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > But what does this have to do with the fact that you appear to
think
> | > pride goes
> | > | > against your religion, and yet you are full of the stuff?
> | > |
> | > | You haven't the foggiest idea what sinful pride is do you? You only
> know
> | > | the secular word. The only way to eliminate pride in your life is to
> be
It
> | > | has nothing to do with being passive or meek the way non-believers
> think
> | > | of it.
> | > |
flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past post
where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty hypocritical of
you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
>
>
>
> |
> |
> |
>
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
Ala67 <al...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991225122118...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
With all due respect, Mitch, I believe there is a consequence for
spending a lifetime engaging in a wrong belief. The consequence is
that one has forfeited their own autonomy, responsibility for their
own choices, and satisfaction in the outcomes of one's life. There is
an act of creativity involved in living wisely and well. There is
courage in facing life's challenges with dignity and integrity,
including (or especially) the hardships. Handing these things over to
a belief in some entity that takes over such roles deprives you of the
chance to live life fully, in my opinion. If you believe, as I do,
that you only go around once, then passing up the chance to live as
fully as possible is an irremediable error. A great deal is lost as
the result of "foolishness," as you put it.
Martha Hughes
JohnMOUNT <john...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991225041153...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
have guessed. Thanks for giving me a smile, John!
gift-wrapped_genitals
> You know kelly, you want me to forget your terrible behavior (where you
> flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past post
> where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty hypocritical of
> you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
Nope. I don't think she ever will.
gift-wrapped_genitals
> Jitpring, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then nothing--literally,
> nothing--will happen to me as a result of my foolishness.
Except that you will have lived and died without ever having to
thoroughly think through difficult philosophical questions, or decide
for yourself what to believe and why. The God you believe in gave you
a wonderful mind, you believe, carved in his image, you believe; yet
you'll have lived and died without ever opening it up to full throttle
and seeing what it could do. That's a great loss, believe.
You'll also have lived and died believing in a superstitious set of
rules which, if followed to the letter as many millions do, may have
made your life happier. I hope so. Or, if followed to a different
letter as many other millions do, it will have made your life, the
lives of your loved ones, and the society you lived in more cruel and
miserable.
In the end, with or without your faith, your life is what you make it.
waxingmoon
I don't expect you to forget my terrible behavior at all.
I expect that my *past* not be thrown in my face.
I'm not going to spend the rest of my life apologizing
for alleged past wrongs. I'll certainly apologize to those who have
unintentionally gotten my wrath....but the nasties, and you know who you are
deserved whatever they got.
If they want to make peace, fine...if not....I'll live.
|
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
|
|
waxingmoon
<Gift-wrapped Genitals> wrote in message
news:386509f7...@news.mindspring.com...
| "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| > You know kelly, you want me to forget your terrible behavior (where you
| > flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past
post
| > where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty
hypocritical of
| > you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
|
|
|
| "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
| turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
| --
Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
I've seen no apologies from anyone...gee, are you sorry Martha? If I
apologized, would it make a diff? No, I don't think so. It would just be
something else. Like with you genitals...you can't seem to get past
anything either.
waxingmoon
| >Subject: Re: Questions for the Believer
| >From: "Bushman" jiml...@compuserve.com
| >Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 02:08 AM EST
| >Message-id: <841jhc$ef7$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
| >
| >
| >>
| >> Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
| >> news:841430$9p3$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
| >> |
| >> | <wild...@trial.freedom.net> wrote in message
| >> | news:s67eafo...@corp.supernews.com...
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | >
Not at all.....it's just that I don't know where I am right now. The whole
religious thing
is very emotional for me. I see things that are upsetting on BOTH sides.
That's a tough spot to be in.
I just have to work my way through it. I resent being put in a place to try
and defend it...when I'm unsure.
If I say something, I may feel differently tomorrow.
Has everyting always been so clear for you? What does it mean when it is
not?
thanks
kel
|
Martha Hughes
>
> <Gift-wrapped Genitals> wrote in message
> news:386509f7...@news.mindspring.com...
> | "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
you
> | > flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past
> post
> | > where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty
> hypocritical of
> | > you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
> |
> |
> |
> | ====
> | "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
> | turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
>
--
> Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
>
> I've seen no apologies from anyone...gee, are you sorry Martha? If I
> apologized, would it make a diff? No, I don't think so.
It would if you really meant it.
It would just be
> something else. Like with you genitals...you can't seem to get past
> anything either.
As a matter of fact, after I posting that one message, oh so long ago, I did
post that I regretted saying it.
>
Martha Hughes
anybody else in this NG. At least they were adult enough to keep things
within the NG and not take it to a personal level. Grow up and get some
help, kelly, you really need it.
> |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> |
> |
>
Ala67
>Gift-wrapped Genitals
>Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 01:30 PM EST
>Message-id: <38650cef...@news.mindspring.com>
>Except that you will have lived and died without ever having to
>thoroughly think through difficult philosophical questions, or decide
>for yourself what to believe and why.
And it's up to me to struggle with those questions, not up to someone else to
tell me I'm grappling with them incorrectly and stupidly, unless my beliefs
cause harm to someone else.
>The God you believe in gave you
>a wonderful mind, you believe, carved in his image, you believe; yet
>you'll have lived and died without ever opening it up to full throttle
>and seeing what it could do.
And I can't do these things within the framework of Judaism because?????
>That's a great loss, believe.
>
>You'll also have lived and died believing in a superstitious set of
>rules which, if followed to the letter as many millions do, may have
>made your life happier. I hope so. Or, if followed to a different
>letter as many other millions do, it will have made your life, the
>lives of your loved ones, and the society you lived in more cruel and
>miserable.
Same could be said about damn near any set of beliefs.
>In the end, with or without your faith, your life is what you make it.
>
And belief in G-d in no way diminishes my responsibility to make the most of
it. If I didn't believe it enhanced and ennobled it, there would be no point
to that belief.
Mitch
Ala67
>"Pogo Possum, Ph.D." pogo...@earthlink.net
>Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 12:41 PM EST
>Message-id: <6l794.3122$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>With all due respect, Mitch, I believe there is a consequence for
>spending a lifetime engaging in a wrong belief.
Pat Robertson would say the same thing to me. Admittedly, he'd say the
consequences are a lot different that what you are saying, but in both cases
you're both saying "whoops, the Jew blew it on Planet Earth."
> The consequence is
>that one has forfeited their own autonomy, responsibility for their
>own choices, and satisfaction in the outcomes of one's life.
Where do you find in anything that I've said that my belief in G-d requires
that I abdicate responsibility for my choices and actions?
> There is
>an act of creativity involved in living wisely and well.
Where do you find belief in G-d incompatible with living wisely and well?
> There is
>courage in facing life's challenges with dignity and integrity,
>including (or especially) the hardships. Handing these things over to
>a belief in some entity that takes over such roles deprives you of the
>chance to live life fully, in my opinion.
Turning things over to G-d doesn't mean that I have no responsibility not to
keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying to do what is the
right thing to do. Doing G-d's will is not the passive venture you make it out
to be.
> If you believe, as I do,
>that you only go around once, then passing up the chance to live as
>fully as possible is an irremediable error. A great deal is lost as
>the result of "foolishness," as you put it.
And we're back to square one. You would have me believe that chucking the
religious crap is the only way to live fully. And when you go there, you are
wandering towards the direction I described in my original post.
Mitch
waxingmoon
Martha....I didn't write the emails...a bot did. They have NOT kept things
in this group...they have
ventured out, posting to other groups (like withTina) and doing searches
trying to seriously damage me.
I'm not suppose to be pissed about that?
I don't NEED help Martha...I need a decent conversation. Not silly jokes,
innuendo, mockery, clever little
barbs....I need a sincere and real conversation with real people.
|
|
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
|
|
Martha Hughes
to it before, why should I believe this?
> |
> |
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> |
> |
>
waxingmoon
Martha...I sent them, guilty, but I did not compose the messages. It was
all automated.
I am truly sorry for that.
|
| > |
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
|
|
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
> Pogo Possum wrote:
>
> >"Pogo Possum, Ph.D." pogo...@earthlink.net
> >Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 12:41 PM EST
> >Message-id:
<6l794.3122$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> >With all due respect, Mitch, I believe there is a consequence for
> >spending a lifetime engaging in a wrong belief.
>
> Pat Robertson would say the same thing to me. Admittedly, he'd say
the
> consequences are a lot different that what you are saying, but in
both cases
> you're both saying "whoops, the Jew blew it on Planet Earth."
>
Beg to differ. I am saying that everyone who believes in some deity
and uses that deity to avoid the existential questions of life (as
described by Albert Camus for example) is blowing it on Planet Earth.
I did not and would not single out Jews, many of whom come a whole lot
closer to my idea of a life well lived than other religions do.
> > The consequence is
> >that one has forfeited their own autonomy, responsibility for their
> >own choices, and satisfaction in the outcomes of one's life.
>
> Where do you find in anything that I've said that my belief in G-d
requires
> that I abdicate responsibility for my choices and actions?
>
I do not know anything about you personally and was speaking in
general terms not commenting upon you personally. But, I think that
when someone believes in God there is attendant with that belief a set
of obligations to God that circumscribe choices by dictating behavior.
In other words, religions come with moral codes that interfere with
one's formation of an individual moral code to guide behavior. God and
religion tell you what you ought to do. True, the ultimate choice is
up to you, but there is peer pressure and other forms of persuasion
that go along with the moral code. Further, there are sources of
comfort in shared belief and shared behavior that sugar coat existence
and interfere with taking full responsibility. There is no longer the
anxiety over what constitutes right choice because that "right" choice
is validated by the religion. Camus's discussion of what it means to
be alone and to never be fully sure of what one should do is the
reason why existence demands courage. In my opinion, there is little
such courage in joining a group that structures your life, provides an
identity and an accepting peer group, and gives you a clear path to
salvation.
> > There is
> >an act of creativity involved in living wisely and well.
>
> Where do you find belief in G-d incompatible with living wisely and
well?
>
See above. With religion, one is not living one's own life but is
living God's life -- life as the person understands God (or whatever
spiritual entity) would wish it lived. The idea of what constitutes
living wisely and well becomes the standard of the religion (or
usually, the other church members), not of the individual.
> > There is
> >courage in facing life's challenges with dignity and integrity,
> >including (or especially) the hardships. Handing these things over
to
> >a belief in some entity that takes over such roles deprives you of
the
> >chance to live life fully, in my opinion.
>
> Turning things over to G-d doesn't mean that I have no
responsibility not to
> keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying to do
what is the
> right thing to do. Doing G-d's will is not the passive venture you
make it out
> to be.
>
No, nearly all religious beings dictate difficult ways of living for
their followers. But adhering to a difficult set of rules is not the
same as deciding on a moment-by-moment basis what one's rules ought to
be. Turning things over to God means giving up the right to set
guidelines for what consitutes morality and it means thereby giving up
responsibility for the outcomes. As long as what a person has done is
consistent with their interpretation of what God would have them do,
there is no uncertainty about whether they did the right thing, no
matter how it turned out. And there is no need to second-guess God's
intentions because there are plentiful interpreters of God's will.
Turning things over to God means you escape uncertainty that goes with
accepting responsibility for one's actions.
> > If you believe, as I do,
> >that you only go around once, then passing up the chance to live as
> >fully as possible is an irremediable error. A great deal is lost
as
> >the result of "foolishness," as you put it.
>
> And we're back to square one. You would have me believe that
chucking the
> religious crap is the only way to live fully. And when you go there,
you are
> wandering towards the direction I described in my original post.
>
Depends on what your goals are. If you value living life fully, then
yes, I think that "chucking the religious crap" is certainly the best
way to do it. If you value being comfortable or happy, then I think
wholeheartedly embracing "the religious crap" is the best way to do
it. Other good ways of living a semi-anesthetized life include
drinking lots of booze and/or taking drugs, being a gourmet or
sensation seeker, focusing on friends and family and other social
relationships, and otherwise avoiding challenge at every turn. As
human beings we are equipped with mechanisms that encourage us to seek
pleasure and avoid pain. That's all most people ever do, and religion
helps them do it. A life lived without attention to such feeling
states is empty, but pleasure and pain can be experienced in
non-religious contexts, whereas I doubt that the exercise of
humanity's higher capacities can be satisfied in a religious context.
The reason I believe this is because people will always be less than
they are capable of being if they abdicate the exercise of certain
personal responsibilities to God and church. Being less than one is
capable of being is another way of saying that life is not being fully
lived.
Bushman
> >Subject: Re: Questions for the Believer
I doubt they can rival the Italian priests, but the religious right did
embark on a campaign of taking over local school boards, and succeeded in
many cases. The evolution fight is a manifestation of that project but now
that the average Kansan has realized what happened they'll be paying more
attention to school boards.
Bushman
>
Bushman
> >Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 12:41 PM EST
> >Message-id: <6l794.3122$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> >With all due respect, Mitch, I believe there is a consequence for
> >spending a lifetime engaging in a wrong belief.
>
> Pat Robertson would say the same thing to me. Admittedly, he'd say the
> consequences are a lot different that what you are saying, but in both
cases
> you're both saying "whoops, the Jew blew it on Planet Earth."
>
> >that one has forfeited their own autonomy, responsibility for their
> >own choices, and satisfaction in the outcomes of one's life.
>
> Where do you find in anything that I've said that my belief in G-d
requires
> that I abdicate responsibility for my choices and actions?
>
> >an act of creativity involved in living wisely and well.
>
> Where do you find belief in G-d incompatible with living wisely and well?
>
> >courage in facing life's challenges with dignity and integrity,
> >including (or especially) the hardships. Handing these things over to
> >a belief in some entity that takes over such roles deprives you of the
> >chance to live life fully, in my opinion.
>
> Turning things over to G-d doesn't mean that I have no responsibility not
to
> keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying to do what is
the
> right thing to do. Doing G-d's will is not the passive venture you make
it out
> to be.
>
> >that you only go around once, then passing up the chance to live as
> >fully as possible is an irremediable error. A great deal is lost as
> >the result of "foolishness," as you put it.
>
> And we're back to square one. You would have me believe that chucking the
> religious crap is the only way to live fully. And when you go there, you
are
> wandering towards the direction I described in my original post.
>
I agree with Pogo but I wouldn't want to use the Jewish faith as an
example - not because I don't think the same things apply but because I'm
not familiar enough with your faith to pick out examples. I would point
instead to the xian fundamentalists - if you are one, your attitudes about
gays, sex education, gambling, drugs and a host of other issues is already
determined. Not by reasoned thought, but blind acceptance to a faith. I
suppose believing in chupacabra's isn't "harmful", but it does seem to the
outsider that all the fear and guarding against the evil one.
As far as I can tell, accepting any pre-fab belief system does limit
your life in some ways - the trade-off, I guess, is that it frees up some of
the time you would burn up coming to your own conclusions. It also puts ways
of acting or thinking off-limits, and may even limit the very way a debate
is defined. The three mainstream religions seem to devalue women, have way
too much to say about sex and have peculiar notions about who will be
invited to share the goodies later. All in all, I'm happy making those
decisions for myself.
Bushman
>
>
Bushman
> >Subject: Re: Questions for the Believer
> >Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 02:08 AM EST
> >Message-id: <841jhc$ef7$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >> news:841430$9p3$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >> |
> >> | <wild...@trial.freedom.net> wrote in message
> >> | news:s67eafo...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> | >
> >> | >
> >> | >
Thank you much, Neut.
Bushman
>
georgann
Bushman wrote:
> As far as I can tell, accepting any pre-fab belief system does limit
> your life in some ways - the trade-off, I guess, is that it frees up some of
> the time you would burn up coming to your own conclusions. It also puts ways
> of acting or thinking off-limits, and may even limit the very way a debate
> is defined. The three mainstream religions seem to devalue women, have way
> too much to say about sex and have peculiar notions about who will be
> invited to share the goodies later. All in all, I'm happy making those
> decisions for myself.
Georgann contends (ALAS):
Bushman, I am of the opinion that sex is only a lasting thrill after the
first six months of "involvement" when two people are truly committed.
IMO - TRUST - seems to be the only aphrodisiac that works indefinitely.
If that requires knowing that the other person has made commitments not
only to you but also to the same set of prescribed moral principles,
then so be it. I know for a fact that despite the bad press the Baptists
get for their "two steps back" views on women, both the Jews and the
Christians (as groups not all individuals) hold women in higher regard,
offering more freedom and more individual power than other religions in
the world. Addendum - I am a bit uncertain about the women of Islam, and
I don't think we can say about third world countries becasue their lives
are so bogged down in keeping themselves fed to have the luxury of
pondering choices, freedoms, ambitions, carreers, creativity, ideas, etc.
Ala67
>Pogo Possum, Ph.D." pogo...@earthlink.net
>Date: Sat, 25 December 1999 01:09 PM EST
>Message-id: <843ssa$s7v$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>Beg to differ. I am saying that everyone who believes in some deity
>and uses that deity to avoid the existential questions of life (as
>described by Albert Camus for example) is blowing it on Planet Earth.
>I did not and would not single out Jews, many of whom come a whole lot
>closer to my idea of a life well lived than other religions do.
Having a set of religious beliefs doesn't blow out the whole "Why are we
here, and what should we do with our time while we're here" set of questions.
Determining G-d's will can be an extraordinarily difficult challenge.
>I do not know anything about you personally and was speaking in
>general terms not commenting upon you personally. But, I think that
>when someone believes in God there is attendant with that belief a set
>of obligations to God that circumscribe choices by dictating behavior.
>In other words, religions come with moral codes that interfere with
>one's formation of an individual moral code to guide behavior. God
>and
>religion tell you what you ought to do
Judaism is not that cut and dried. Different interpretations abound. There
are 613 positive and negative commandments I've got. Ain't no way I'm gonna be
able to do them all, and ain't no rabbi expects me to. Perfection isn't an
option, striving is.
>True, the ultimate choice is
>up to you, but there is peer pressure and other forms of persuasion
>that go along with the moral code.
>Further, there are sources of
>comfort in shared belief and shared behavior that sugar coat existence
>and interfere with taking full responsibility. There is no longer the
>anxiety over what constitutes right choice because that "right" choice
>is validated by the religion. Camus's discussion of what it means to
>be alone and to never be fully sure of what one should do is the
>reason why existence demands courage. In my opinion, there is little
>such courage in joining a group that structures your life, provides an
>identity and an accepting peer group, and gives you a clear path to
>salvation.
To me, becoming part of my faith--a faith I had pretty much discarded from my
Bar Mitzvah until my mid '30's--took a great deal of courage. It meant
surrendering the idea that I was in control, that I knew everything, and that I
was the ultimate agent for deciding right and wrong. It is much, much easier to
be a cultural Jew than a religious one, and though I wouldn't hold myself out
as an example of how to practice my faith to anyone, I still hold my faith out
to myself as a goal.
>See above. With religion, one is not living one's own life but is
>living God's life -- life as the person understands God (or whatever
>spiritual entity) would wish it lived. The idea of what constitutes
>living wisely and well becomes the standard of the religion (or
>usually, the other church members), not of the individual.
Your last sentence is instructive. You are looking at the people, and not the
tenets of the faith, as the basis to criticise the faith itself. When I was a
Bar Mitzvah boy and thought I knew everything, I looked at the hypocracy of the
members of the congregation and though that was the face of Judaism. I looked
at the guy who was president of my congregation--a man who was the biggest,
sleaziest slumlord in my town--and wondered how he could stand there davenning
with everybody else knowing how he earned his money. I thought that was the
face of Judaism, and of G-d. That was a 13 year old boy's conceit. It was
just his face.
>No, nearly all religious beings dictate difficult ways of living for
>their followers. But adhering to a difficult set of rules is not the
>same as deciding on a moment-by-moment basis what one's rules ought to
>be.
Moral codes aren't moment to moment things. The interpretation of them in
given situations are, and the ranking of priorities may shift, but that's a
different matter.
>Turning things over to God means giving up the right to set
>guidelines for what consitutes morality
See my above comments. Guidelines are like constitutions; they aren't always
easy to figure out, especially when dilemmas present conflicts with more than
one guideline. Trying to emulate the loving face of G-d requires those of use
here on Earth, using nothing but our own powers of comprehension, to sort it
out. It would be nice if, occasionally, that burning bush thingy would
reappear and make it all easy, but it rarely does, any more; which is, I
suspect, the point.
>and it means thereby giving up
>responsibility for the outcomes.
No. I don't control the outcome of anything, but sure can cheat things in one
direction or another. (Remember what I do for a living, Pogo, I'm paid to do
precisely that). G-d doesn't excuse me from the consequences of my
actions.(Nor do I excuse myself.) Even if I do something less than the right
thing and nothing bad happens, I'm still not off the hook, neither in G-d's
eyes nor my own.
> As long as what a person has done is
>consistent with their interpretation of what God would have them do,
>there is no uncertainty about whether they did the right thing, no
>matter how it turned out.
> As long as what a person has done is
>consistent with their interpretation of what God would have them do,
>there is no uncertainty about whether they did the right thing, no
>matter how it turned out.
Ultimately, you do have to put the choices you make behind you, if only to keep
moving forward. Doesn't mean you don't flash back there on occasion, but there
would be something distinctly unhealthy about always looking back and never
moving on.
>And there is no need to second-guess God's
>intentions because there are plentiful interpreters of God's will.
Having access to lots of opinions doesn't necessarily make understanding G-d's
will easier; sometimes, it's quite the opposite. Get a roomful of Jews
together and ask them all about what were G-d's intentions in the Holocaust and
see what I mean.
>Turning things over to God means you escape uncertainty that goes with
>accepting responsibility for one's actions.
No. Turning things over to G-d means that, at a point, after you've done all
you can do (assuming you've truly done that), you can't
assume responsibility for G-d's actions. You're still responsible for your
own. Always.
>Depends on what your goals are. If you value living life fully, then
>yes, I think that "chucking the religious crap" is certainly the best
>way to do it. If you value being comfortable or happy, then I think
>wholeheartedly embracing "the religious crap" is the best way to do
>it. Other good ways of living a semi-anesthetized life include
>drinking lots of booze and/or taking drugs,
In light of a comment like this, I wonder where 12-step programs such as AA or
NA--which explicitly rely on a belief in a higher power as the person
understands them to be--fit into your equation, particularly in light of your
background as a psychologist. I'm curious about this.
>being a gourmet or
>sensation seeker, focusing on friends and family and other social
>relationships, and otherwise avoiding challenge at every turn. As
>human beings we are equipped with mechanisms that encourage us to seek
>pleasure and avoid pain. That's all most people ever do, and religion
>helps them do it. A life lived without attention to such feeling
>states is empty, but pleasure and pain can be experienced in
>non-religious contexts, whereas I doubt that the exercise of
>humanity's higher capacities can be satisfied in a religious context.
>The reason I believe this is because people will always be less than
>they are capable of being if they abdicate the exercise of certain
>personal responsibilities to God and church. Being less than one is
>capable of being is another way of saying that life is not being fully
>lived.
Mitch
Ala67
>"Bushman" jiml...@compuserve.com
>Date: Sun, 26 December 1999 01:23 AM EST
>Message-id: <844598$ci1$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>I agree with Pogo but I wouldn't want to use the Jewish faith as an
>example - not because I don't think the same things apply but because I'm
>not familiar enough with your faith to pick out examples. I would point
>instead to the xian fundamentalists - if you are one, your attitudes about
>gays, sex education, gambling, drugs and a host of other issues is already
>determined. Not by reasoned thought, but blind acceptance to a faith.
I've addressed some of this stuff in my post to Pogo; the only thing I'd add is
that many of the points you talk about, particularly the role of women, varies
considerably among the four branches (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist
and Reform) of Judaism.
Mitch
Bushman
Our experiences with sex are quite different. As far as Islam, depending on
how conservative or fundamental the sect, women might not be able to show
their faces or be educated. In Taliban territory, women need permission from
a male member of the family to leave the house. Without permission, they
have been stoned to death. One of their first moves was to immediately stop
all education of females. The less conservative factions just observe the
same prejudices to a lesser degree, and I wouldn't call it placing women in
high esteem.
As for xian women, some now are taking leadership positions in their
churches, after clawing and fighting for each and every gain. And of course,
the catholic church will never let women be ordained, let alone contaminate
a priest's bed.
No, it seem to me that the sky-god religions are not on woman's side.
Eve gets a worse rap than Adam or the snake, you will notice. In fact,
before the sky-god religions, women had influence in healing and in
spiritual matters. The birth of xianity was a gender revolt, to wrest power
from women. After xianity, any woman claiming to heal was suspected to be a
witch and women were locked out of religious and medical positions until our
lifetime.
Bushman
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> > I agree with Pogo but I wouldn't want to use the Jewish faith as an
> > example - not because I don't think the same things apply but because I'm
> > not familiar enough with your faith to pick out examples. I would point
> > instead to the xian fundamentalists - if you are one, your attitudes about
> > gays, sex education, gambling, drugs and a host of other issues is already
> > determined. Not by reasoned thought, but blind acceptance to a faith.
ala67 replied
> I've addressed some of this stuff in my post to Pogo; the only thing I'd add is
> that many of the points you talk about, particularly the role of women, varies
> considerably among the four branches (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist
> and Reform) of Judaism.
Yes, and there are always such doctrinal differences and disputes,
because an unclear God can't make himself clear. Humans have so many
religions to choose from, and within each religion such a wide variety
of dogmas and denominations, each with so many, many god-given
commandments. Could any Jew -- or any Christian or Moslem -- follow
*all* of God's commands? It would seem very nearly a physical
impossibility. Even with the best of effort, all any believer can do
is choose the commands he or she cares about, and disregard the rest.
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> >Beg to differ. I am saying that everyone who believes in some deity
> >and uses that deity to avoid the existential questions of life (as
> >described by Albert Camus for example) is blowing it on Planet Earth.
> >I did not and would not single out Jews, many of whom come a whole lot
> >closer to my idea of a life well lived than other religions do.
ala67 replied
> Having a set of religious beliefs doesn't blow out the whole "Why are we
> here, and what should we do with our time while we're here" set of questions.
> Determining G-d's will can be an extraordinarily difficult challenge.
Indeed. He's certainly not one for sending direct memos.
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
> Holocaust of the Second World War?
> 24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
> smaller than their numbers in the general population?
Of the 34 theses Jitpring nailed to the door here, was it just an
oversight that you left these two unanswered? #24 seems weak enough to
be easily rebutted, but #11 calls into question the entire concept of
"God's chosen people." I hope you'll address it, please.
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> > > You know kelly, you want me to forget your terrible behavior (where you
> > > flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past post
> > > where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty hypocritical of
> > > you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
Gift-wrapped Genitals answered
> > Nope. I don't think she ever will.
Kelly England et al replied
> I've seen no apologies from anyone...gee, are you sorry Martha? If I
> apologized, would it make a diff? No, I don't think so. It would just be
> something else. Like with you genitals...you can't seem to get past
> anything either.
You've seen no apologies from anyone, Kelly? Gee. I don't have time to
search, find, and display each and all of the dozens of apologies this
group has given you, but here are five I found in five minutes:
"Thanks, Kelly. ... I apologize."
--Cleo, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/11
"I don't have any big argument with you. Sorry."
--Peggy, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
"Yes, saw the apology...accepted."
--Kelly, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
"I am sorry for that."
--Cyn, Re: Kelly England: A USENET Library, 12/25
"... if you were similarly hurt I'll | promptly apologize."
-Genitals, Re: Religious Intolerance, 12/12
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> > Jitpring, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then nothing--literally,
> > nothing--will happen to me as a result of my foolishness.
Gift-wrapped Genitals wrote
> Except that you will have lived and died without ever having to
> thoroughly think through difficult philosophical questions, or decide
> for yourself what to believe and why.
ala67 replied
> And it's up to me to struggle with those questions, not up to someone else to
> tell me I'm grappling with them incorrectly and stupidly, unless my beliefs
> cause harm to someone else.
Nobody disputes this. Of course it's up to each of us to struggle with
such questions, just as, of course, it's less of a struggle to trust
in answers without evidence, offered by men in flowing robes.
> > The God you believe in gave you
> > a wonderful mind, you believe, carved in his image, you believe; yet
> > you'll have lived and died without ever opening it up to full throttle
> > and seeing what it could do.
>
> And I can't do these things within the framework of Judaism because?????
The framework gets in the way.
> > That's a great loss, I believe.
> >
> > You'll also have lived and died believing in a superstitious set of
> > rules which, if followed to the letter as many millions do, may have
> > made your life happier. I hope so. Or, if followed to a different
> > letter as many other millions do, it will have made your life, the
> > lives of your loved ones, and the society you lived in more cruel and
> > miserable.
> Same could be said about damn near any set of beliefs.
Certainly, we are agreed.
> > In the end, with or without your faith, your life is what you make it.
> And belief in G-d in no way diminishes my responsibility to make the most of
> it. If I didn't believe it enhanced and ennobled it, there would be no point
> to that belief.
Since I don't see how life is enhanced and ennobled by believing
ancient myths without proof, I see no point in such beliefs.
Neutrodyne
>Date: Sun, 26 December 1999 09:34 AM EST
>Message-id: <3866276d...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>> 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
>> antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
>> Holocaust of the Second World War?
I don't know how I missed this one. Perhaps it was abvious that intervening
didn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again, so He tried letting us
solve it ourselves to see if we would learn more from the experience and
remember it longer?
>> 24) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much
>> smaller than their numbers in the general population?
>
>
I think this is simply a matter of what prisoners choose to answer in
interviews and on paper going into prison (they likely figure saying they are
Christian will get them sympathy and maybe visits, someplace to go on Sunday,
etc.). Many convert (sincerely or not) in prison for the same sorts of
reasons.It's one more thing they can pooint to and say -"see I'm all better
now, let me out early!"
Neutrodyne
Martha Hughes
OK, I'll accept that. And I will say no more about them. Thanks, kelly.
> |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> |
> |
>
Neutrodyne
>> Jitpring, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then nothing--literally,
>> nothing--will happen to me as a result of my foolishness.
>
>thoroughly think through difficult philosophical questions, or decide
>a wonderful mind, you believe, carved in his image, you believe; yet
>you'll have lived and died without ever opening it up to full throttle
>You'll also have lived and died believing in a superstitious set of
>rules which, if followed to the letter as many millions do, may have
>made your life happier. I hope so. Or, if followed to a different
>letter as many other millions do, it will have made your life, the
>miserable.
>
>In the end, with or without your faith, your life is what you make it.
>
>
> "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
>turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
> --
>Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
And doesn't that diversity (and yes, confusion I suppose) come closer to
the idea Pogo holds out of every individual creating his/her own moral rulebook
from scratch? I'm sure there are people who accept one church and all it's
teachings from childhood to the grave, but I wonder how many there are in
Christainity today. Most people I know have experienced much casting about,
looking for a church that fits the decisions and rules they have made on their
own....
Neutrodyne
kelly
Martha apologizing for her dancing on the grave comment. She wanted to know
why I was bringing up the past...implying I should forget it. She implied
her behavior was "terrible"...yet I've seen no apology. She doesn't owe me
one...not at all.
I've exhanged apologies many times here. Private and otherwise.
<Oh my aching genitals!> wrote in message
news:3866278b...@news.mindspring.com...
> Martha Hughes wrote
> > > > You know kelly, you want me to forget your terrible behavior (where
you
> > > > flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one
past post
> > > > where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty
hypocritical of
> > > > you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
>
> Gift-wrapped Genitals answered
> > > Nope. I don't think she ever will.
>
> Kelly England et al replied
> > I've seen no apologies from anyone...gee, are you sorry Martha? If I
> > apologized, would it make a diff? No, I don't think so. It would just
be
> > something else. Like with you genitals...you can't seem to get past
> > anything either.
>
> You've seen no apologies from anyone, Kelly? Gee. I don't have time to
> search, find, and display each and all of the dozens of apologies this
> group has given you, but here are five I found in five minutes:
>
> "Thanks, Kelly. ... I apologize."
> --Cleo, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/11
>
> "I don't have any big argument with you. Sorry."
> --Peggy, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
>
> "Yes, saw the apology...accepted."
> --Kelly, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
>
> "I am sorry for that."
> --Cyn, Re: Kelly England: A USENET Library, 12/25
>
> "... if you were similarly hurt I'll | promptly apologize."
> -Genitals, Re: Religious Intolerance, 12/12
>
>
Martha Hughes
held much of the pagan pre-xtian beliefs, women were midwives, serving as
doctors, and were seen in very high esteem. Then, during the Rennaisance,
they were burned at the stake, midwives, especially, and demoted to
less-than-human status. If anyone would like to read a greta book about the
Rennaisance era, read "The Weaker Vessel." I've forgotten the author, but
it's a very real and depressing look at women during this time. It seems
that the rich women did not necessarily have it better than the poor.
>
>
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> Of the 34 theses Jitpring nailed to the door here, was it just an
> oversight that you left these two unanswered? #24 seems weak enough to
> be easily rebutted, but #11 calls into question the entire concept of
> "God's chosen people." I hope you'll address it, please.
> > 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
> > antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
> > Holocaust of the Second World War?
Neutrodyne replied
> I don't know how I missed this one. Perhaps it was abvious that intervening
> didn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again, so He tried letting us
> solve it ourselves to see if we would learn more from the experience and
> remember it longer?
In your opinion, has this strategy been successful? Worth the cost?
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> > 1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
> > one?
> I've seen God. God is the creator of the universe we can observe.
Did you get any snapshots of God? An autograph? Any evidence at all,
to convince anyone? Nobody seriously doubts there's a universe, Neut,
but the universe is not evidence that God sent Jesus to die on a cross
for our sins.
Martha Hughes
I can't remember what), but I did admit that I was wrong.
oh_my_aching_genitals!
> > > > > You know kelly, you want me to forget your terrible behavior (where you
> > > > > flamed my email with many messages), yet you keep bringing up one past post
> > > > > where I said I would dance on someone's grave. That's pretty hypocritical of
> > > > > you. Which is it? Will you, to use your own words "get over it?"
Gift-wrapped Genitals answered
> > > > Nope. I don't think she ever will.
Kelly England et al replied
> > > I've seen no apologies from anyone...gee, are you sorry Martha? If I
> > > apologized, would it make a diff? No, I don't think so. It would just be
> > > something else. Like with you genitals...you can't seem to get past
> > > anything either.
oh my aching genitals replied
> > You've seen no apologies from anyone, Kelly? Gee. I don't have time to
> > search, find, and display each and all of the dozens of apologies this
> > group has given you, but here are five I found in five minutes:
> >
> > "Thanks, Kelly. ... I apologize."
> > --Cleo, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/11
> >
> > "I don't have any big argument with you. Sorry."
> > --Peggy, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
> >
> > "Yes, saw the apology...accepted."
> > --Kelly, Re: "I'm a Christian," 12/7
> >
> > "I am sorry for that."
> > --Cyn, Re: Kelly England: A USENET Library, 12/25
> >
> > "... if you were similarly hurt I'll | promptly apologize."
> > -Genitals, Re: Religious Intolerance, 12/12
Kelly England et al responded
> Nice work...again. Only thing is...I didn't mean apologies to me, I meant
> Martha apologizing for her dancing on the grave comment. She wanted to know
> why I was bringing up the past...implying I should forget it. She implied
> her behavior was "terrible"...yet I've seen no apology. She doesn't owe me
> one...not at all.
> I've exhanged apologies many times here. Private and otherwise.
Thank you for your compliment.
I am delighted that you no longer think Martha owes you an apology,
and hope the subject doesn't come up again.
kelly
<oh my aching genitals!> wrote in message
news:38663fb8...@news.mindspring.com...
I've never thought she owed me an apology. I've been upset at her comments
to others
who haven't really deserved it. But, I manage to defend myself and Martha
and I both have
apologized to each other more than once.
Anyone who feels they've been wronged will just have to take up their own
cause from now on.
georgann
> > Bushman, I am of the opinion that sex is only a lasting thrill after the
> > first six months of "involvement" when two people are truly committed.
> > IMO - TRUST - seems to be the only aphrodisiac that works indefinitely.
> > If that requires knowing that the other person has made commitments not
> > only to you but also to the same set of prescribed moral principles,
> > then so be it. I know for a fact that despite the bad press the Baptists
> > get for their "two steps back" views on women, both the Jews and the
> > Christians (as groups not all individuals) hold women in higher regard,
> > offering more freedom and more individual power than other religions in
> > the world. Addendum - I am a bit uncertain about the women of Islam, and
> > I don't think we can say about third world countries becasue their lives
> > are so bogged down in keeping themselves fed to have the luxury of
> > pondering choices, freedoms, ambitions, carreers, creativity, ideas, etc.
> Our experiences with sex are quite different.
Georgann adds:
I can attest to that in a limited way. What I meant is for a woman to
respond as if she is "IN love", I believe it requires a very deep trust
in the partner. My experience (pre-conversion) was just as extensive as
the next persons. Infatuations, downright lust, semi-meaningful
relationships, couldn't resist the occasional "eyes accross the crowded
room" thing, etc. But it all paled by comparison to a deeply committed
and intensively "connected" relationship that would lead most certainly
to marriage. (Not that all marriages are well "connected".)
I maintain that women who believe otherwise and think they can play sex
for sex sake games are on a long road to disappointment(s). IMO women
are not biologically engineered to be fulfilled as hussies. By my clock
the point of disillusionment and bitter disappoointment is at about 6
months into any new relationship that is chemical in nature. Where men's
bodies react very directly to visual and physical stimulation, women's
bodies and responses are evermore complex. If it were not so older men
would not be so easily preyed upon by younger firmer female bodies. Can
we say AMEN to that brother!
Bushmn:
> As far as Islam, depending on
> how conservative or fundamental the sect, women might not be able to show
> their faces or be educated. In Taliban territory, women need permission from
> a male member of the family to leave the house. Without permission, they
> have been stoned to death. One of their first moves was to immediately stop
> all education of females. The less conservative factions just observe the
> same prejudices to a lesser degree, and I wouldn't call it placing women in
> high esteem.
> As for xian women, some now are taking leadership positions in their
> churches, after clawing and fighting for each and every gain. And of course,
> the catholic church will never let women be ordained, let alone contaminate
> a priest's bed.
> No, it seem to me that the sky-god religions are not on woman's side.
> Eve gets a worse rap than Adam or the snake, you will notice. In fact,
> before the sky-god religions, women had influence in healing and in
> spiritual matters. The birth of xianity was a gender revolt, to wrest power
> from women. After xianity, any woman claiming to heal was suspected to be a
> witch and women were locked out of religious and medical positions until our
> lifetime.
I am at a loss on the Taliban culture. But as for the part about women's
authority being "overtaken" by men since Adam, I can only add that my
experience with women (as as one) is that women are mysteriously and
errily connected to nature. Now, perhaps not all of that is necessarily
for the good. Healing is one thing. Destroying is quite another.
I have seen somw women use their "senses" in that area to do some pretty
damaging things. To men mostly but also to family members or people they
work with. Where some terrible men abuse women through domination
(physical and otherwise) there are probably just as many women who abuse
people with tricks of manipulation and/or passive-aggression. Neither is
attractive or acceptible in my book. I just don't think many men
consider the manipulative side of some women as being very harmful. In
fact I think some men are pecularly drawn to it. Other men are evidently
oblivious to it. (Second only to sexually active pedos, I respond most
unattractively to passive-aggressive personalities.)
I certainly don't condone accusing someone of being a witch to have them
burned or anything, but if you'll notice most people doing "spiritism"
these days are women. Some today are very content to call themselves
witches. So much for there being "no such thing". At least it seems that
way to me. And I can't help but wonder why anyone would assume that all
spirits are good and mess around with them if they don't really know for
sure. Shirley McLaine never has said she knows these things because the
"good" spirits gave her the info. She just clains "her spirit" has lived
many lives and she remembers them. Now thats incredible faith fellas!
Neutrodyne
>Message-id: <38663cd4...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>oh my aching genitals! wrote:
>> Of the 34 theses Jitpring nailed to the door here, was it just an
>> oversight that you left these two unanswered? #24 seems weak enough to
>> be easily rebutted, but #11 calls into question the entire concept of
>> "God's chosen people." I hope you'll address it, please.
>
>> > 11) Why did God intervene so many times in human affairs during
>> > antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do anything during the
>> > Holocaust of the Second World War?
>
>Neutrodyne replied
>> I don't know how I missed this one. Perhaps it was abvious that intervening
>> didn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again, so He tried letting
>us
>> solve it ourselves to see if we would learn more from the experience and
>> remember it longer?
>
>In your opinion, has this strategy been successful? Worth the cost?
>
>
> "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
>turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
> --
>Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
It's early to make an evaluation. I think an arguement can be made that a lot
of the enlightenment and progress that has been made in the West inspired by
the events of WWII. A thousand years or more would be needed to give it a
similar test of time.
Neutrodyne
Neutrodyne
>From: oh my aching genitals!
>Date: Sun, 26 December 1999 11:05 AM EST
>
>Neutrodyne wrote
>> > 1) How would you define God, and why are you so convinced that there is
>> > one?
>
>> I've seen God. God is the creator of the universe we can observe.
>
>Did you get any snapshots of God? An autograph? Any evidence at all,
>to convince anyone? Nobody seriously doubts there's a universe, Neut,
>but the universe is not evidence that God sent Jesus to die on a cross
>for our sins.
>
>
> "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it
>turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
> --
>Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
>
I can see where you might get that interpretation from what I wrote, but I was
referring to my own near-death experience. "I have seen G-d" and then defining
Him for clarity "The G-d who created the universe we can see."
That offeres you no more proof tahn the way you first understood it, I
fully realize, but at least makes my intent clearer for you.
Neutrodyne