Re: Atheists have blind faith in their ability
Pastor Frank
news:0001HW.C44C723F...@news-server.rgv.rr.com...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 1:12:49 -0500, veritas wrote
> (in message
> <eafd9ec6-39fc-4397...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> Atheists have faith,
>> believers in gods have faith, the problem, both have not a shred of
>> proof. That makes them both religions. They both hold beliefs that
>> are simply hopes and dreams. Regards, Ken Hogan
>
> Veritas
> Perhaps the better way to view the issue of God is to say that we do not
> really know - agnosticism.
> Certainly God could make Himself really known to everyone, after all He
> did
> speak to Moses, and so could speak to everyone (and even better say He
> would
> cure all with cancer and overnight all would be cured) and that would
> solve
> the problem, BUT then that would also remove the question of faith. So if
> God
> needs faith, that cannot happen. .
> What is really important is how we lead our lifes now. Do we need there to
> be
> a reason or purpose why we are here, to lead the "good" life. Do we need
> a
> book to know what is right and wrong.
> There are certainly many interesting and legitimate question about God and
> faith. Many learned and "regular" people, have discussed this for years
> and years and no doubt will continue for many years to come. Even among
> the
> theists there is great disagreement about God.
> There is an old saying, "you pay your money and take your pick" and so it
> is
> here. The choices are theism, atheism, and agnosticism. To me agnosticism
> and
> leading the "good" life is the best choice. I can respect that others
> will
> disagree, but I cannot respect those who use physical force rather than
> words.
> I have enjoyed our discussions.
> Athena
>
Are you an agnostic who wants to know, or an agnostic who is married to
agnosticism no matter what? The problem with your stance is, that "good" as
in "good life" is a function of religion. If you don't think so, then try
and provide objective and verifiable, if not scientifically quantifiable
evidence as to what is good and what is evil. Most atheists and agnostics
are reduced to follow current fashionable opinion as to what is good and
evil.
For Christians "good" is defined by Christ. Though whether Christians
actually do good as Christ commands and demonstrates, is another question.
Pastor Frank
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in
Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We
therefore know our God and have seen Him through Jesus Christ, our Lord
and Saviour. (Jesus in John 14:6-10)
Atheists don't know our God and therefore can't see manifestations of
love and care in human beings, and to the death if need be, such as we see
in Jesus Christ. (Jesus in John 3:3)
default
> Most atheists and agnostics
>are reduced to follow current fashionable opinion as to what is good and
>evil.
> For Christians "good" is defined by Christ. Though whether Christians
>actually do good as Christ commands and demonstrates, is another question.
"Good and Evil" - interesting concepts. I submit that it doesn't
take Christ or a Religion etc. to have a moral code - evolution
already provides it.
The tribe had little need for priests and politicians, everybody
worked or the tribe perished. They learned what works and what
doesn't. The tribes that get it right prosper.
From the very earliest archeological evidence there is more than ample
evidence that humans cooperated and formed societies - that's what
worked for humans - relatively weak as animals go, so brute force is
out.
Don't work for the good of the tribe and the tribe doesn't need you -
you need it more than it needs you. Cooperation is the successful
survival strategy. You learn to work together combining talents for
the common good. A little understanding compassion and empathy are
likely to be a good survival strategy as well - long before
civilization and the con men, priests politicians and other parasites
that civilizations support.
Religions seem to think morality is their purview alone - I submit
that the people and religions that make the most noise about morality
are the least moral - generally speaking. That's a just a good
political strategy. Ever wonder why it is the people that protest the
loudest about how bad homosexuality or child abuse are frequently the
gay or abusers?
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The problem with your stance is, that "good" as
> in "good life" is a function of religion. If you don't think so, then try
> and provide objective and verifiable, if not scientifically quantifiable
> evidence as to what is good and what is evil.
There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
is part of neither.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
monkfish
Does that mean you secretly believe in God?
--
monkfish
* Kindly note that the followup-to header is
set to alt.christnet.theology.
bob young
I'm afraid the above is much too logical for Frank.
Be prepared for another rush of biblical quotes
default
On 14 May 2008 23:47:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
wrote:
>
>I'm afraid the above is much too logical for Frank.
>Be prepared for another rush of biblical quotes
>>
Logic is the antithesis of religion - but biblical quotes? Gotta
wonder how that makes a case.
The fish . . . is so far off the mark he is bound to be a chat-bot.
monkfish
>
> On 14 May 2008 23:47:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm afraid the above is much too logical for Frank.
>>Be prepared for another rush of biblical quotes
>>>
>
> Logic is the antithesis of religion - but biblical quotes? Gotta
> wonder how that makes a case.
>
> The fish . . . is so far off the mark he is bound to be a chat-bot.
More likely you are not familar with ontology
enough to be able to comprehend what I'm saying.
What makes you think God has to exist
in the mode prescribed by physicists?
Why can't God exist in the mode
prescribed by sociologists?
Or a poet for that matter?
You have blind faith in your ability to know of
all actual or possible modes of existence.
Do you believe in democracy?
Do you have any idea how to prove that
democracy exists in USA?
If so, use the same method
to look for God, please.
default
On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:19:37 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>> The problem with your stance is, that "good" as
>> in "good life" is a function of religion. If you don't think so, then try
>> and provide objective and verifiable, if not scientifically quantifiable
>> evidence as to what is good and what is evil.
>
>There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
>is part of neither.
Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
science.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:19:37 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
> >In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> The problem with your stance is, that "good" as
> >> in "good life" is a function of religion. If you don't think so, then try
> >> and provide objective and verifiable, if not scientifically quantifiable
> >> evidence as to what is good and what is evil.
> >
> >There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
> >is part of neither.
> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
> science.
Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
default
On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:19:52 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>
>> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
>> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
>> science.
>
>Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
>Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
>
Because ethics is more commonly associated with philosophy doesn't
mean you won't run into it in other "soft" sciences. It is frequently
taught with business, law, and political science - because it applies
there.
Anthropology can and should lay claim to all human behavior.
But its a minor point. I take the view that all human behavior is
ultimately related to evolution.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:19:52 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
> >
> >> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
> >> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
> >> science.
> >
> >Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
> >Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
> >
> Because ethics is more commonly associated with philosophy doesn't
> mean you won't run into it in other "soft" sciences. It is frequently
> taught with business, law, and political science - because it applies
> there.
That does NOT make ethics a science. One can take history and "run it
into" business, law and polisci. But that doesn't make history a science
any more than it makes ethics a science.
default
On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:04:18 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:19:52 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
>> >> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
>> >> science.
>> >
>> >Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
>> >Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
>> >
>> Because ethics is more commonly associated with philosophy doesn't
>> mean you won't run into it in other "soft" sciences. It is frequently
>> taught with business, law, and political science - because it applies
>> there.
>
>That does NOT make ethics a science. One can take history and "run it
>into" business, law and polisci. But that doesn't make history a science
>any more than it makes ethics a science.
You are correct, I think we are arguing semantics.
You wrote:
>There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
>is part of neither.
"Part of" is the obfuscating term. Part of how?
Strictly speaking the ologies just study - when they posit a theory
based on study is it the realm of science? They do, generally, follow
the scientific method with hypothesis, theories, publishing and peer
review etc., even if they seldom, if ever, come up with a law or
formula . . .
Evolution is a theory, not a science - even though there's plenty of
supporting evidence in favor of it, even scientific experiments that
can be done to support the theory . . .
That also begs a definition of "science" I suppose.
But yes, ethics isn't a "science," in and of itself.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> You wrote:
> >There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
> >is part of neither.
> "Part of" is the obfuscating term. Part of how?
"Included within, as a subset of".
> Strictly speaking the ologies just study - when they posit a theory
> based on study is it the realm of science?
The question is meaningless, given the differences between the fields of
study, and the range of theories that could be proposed.
> Evolution is a theory, not a science - even though there's plenty of
> supporting evidence in favor of it, even scientific experiments that
> can be done to support the theory . . .
Why do you care so much about what labels you attach to these things?
> But yes, ethics isn't a "science," in and of itself.
"Ethics isn't a 'science', in and of" anything else, either.
Thom Madura
Evolution is proven to exist. It is no longer a theory in every case.
Andrew
Now, do you mean that 'evolution' has been proven to exist, or do you
mean that 'the theory of evolution by natural selection has been proven
to be true'?
monkfish
Is love proven to exist?
--
monkfish
* The followup-to header is set to alt.christnet.theology.
** alt.atheism is removed from the groups header.
default
On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:29:06 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>> You wrote:
>> >There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
>> >is part of neither.
>
>> "Part of" is the obfuscating term. Part of how?
>
>"Included within, as a subset of".
>
>
>> Strictly speaking the ologies just study - when they posit a theory
>> based on study is it the realm of science?
>
>The question is meaningless, given the differences between the fields of
>study, and the range of theories that could be proposed.
>
>
>
>> Evolution is a theory, not a science - even though there's plenty of
>> supporting evidence in favor of it, even scientific experiments that
>> can be done to support the theory . . .
>
>Why do you care so much about what labels you attach to these things?
>
I don't, but we do seem to be arguing about labels here.
>
>> But yes, ethics isn't a "science," in and of itself.
>
>"Ethics isn't a 'science', in and of" anything else, either.
Ethics evolved.
default
>
>
>Evolution is proven to exist. It is no longer a theory in every case.
I would agree, but there will always be someone who will and can point
out, that what we do understand to be fact, can't be extrapolated to
fit every possibility. With science you have to keep an open mind.
No matter how ingrained, accepted, or how good you may think the proof
is, you still keep an open mind.
There's no evidence that supports creationism, there is evidence to
support evolution. (through natural selection, over time, - lest
someone wants to argue semantics or labels)
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> >> But yes, ethics isn't a "science," in and of itself.
> >
> >"Ethics isn't a 'science', in and of" anything else, either.
> Ethics evolved.
And continues to do so, just like everything else, as human understanding
increases.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > Evolution is proven to exist. It is no longer a theory in every case.
> Is love proven to exist?
Why do you jump all over the word "exist"? Are you trying to prove that
the sky is sad, because it is "blue"?
Thom Madura
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:29:06 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>> You wrote:
>>>> There is more to the world than science and religion. The field of Ethics
>>>> is part of neither.
>>> "Part of" is the obfuscating term. Part of how?
>> "Included within, as a subset of".
>>
>>
>>> Strictly speaking the ologies just study - when they posit a theory
>>> based on study is it the realm of science?
>> The question is meaningless, given the differences between the fields of
>> study, and the range of theories that could be proposed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is a theory, not a science - even though there's plenty of
>>> supporting evidence in favor of it, even scientific experiments that
>>> can be done to support the theory . . .
>> Why do you care so much about what labels you attach to these things?
>>
> I don't, but we do seem to be arguing about labels here.
>>> But yes, ethics isn't a "science," in and of itself.
>> "Ethics isn't a 'science', in and of" anything else, either.
>
> Ethics evolved.
>
So did religion - every years it asks for more money!
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> >
>> > Evolution is proven to exist. It is no longer a theory in every case.
>
>
>> Is love proven to exist?
>
> Why do you jump all over the word "exist"? Are you trying to prove that
> the sky is sad, because it is "blue"?
Simply because atheists are obssessed with the existence of God
when God is actually prior to existence.
Is logic prior to mathematics?
Pastor Frank
news:1211371986_2821@isp.n...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:19:52 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
>>> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
>>> science.
>>
>>Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
>>Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
>>
> Because ethics is more commonly associated with philosophy doesn't
> mean you won't run into it in other "soft" sciences. It is frequently
> taught with business, law, and political science - because it applies
> there.
>
> Anthropology can and should lay claim to all human behavior.
> But its a minor point. I take the view that all human behavior is
> ultimately related to evolution.
> --
at evolution? What does evolution relate to?
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:1211371986_2821@isp.n...
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:19:52 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unless you consider anthropology a science or psychology, or
> >>> sociology; than ethics or the basis for an ethical code would be
> >>> science.
> >>
> >>Ethics is a branch of none of the threee "ologies" you mention. Try
> >>Wikipedia, likely it has a good article on Ethics.
> >>
> > Because ethics is more commonly associated with philosophy doesn't
> > mean you won't run into it in other "soft" sciences. It is frequently
> > taught with business, law, and political science - because it applies
> > there.
> >
> > Anthropology can and should lay claim to all human behavior.
> > But its a minor point. I take the view that all human behavior is
> > ultimately related to evolution.
........and so would I. Those who think differently have
been imbibed with ancent superstition
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > Why do you jump all over the word "exist"? Are you trying to prove that
> > the sky is sad, because it is "blue"?
> Simply because atheists are obssessed with the existence of God
> when God is actually prior to existence.
> Is logic prior to mathematics?
I don't know what you mean by "prior", which can be used in different
senses. If you are asking whether the field of mathematics depends on
there being logic, then yes, logic is prior to mathematics.
If you say that existence is dependent upon God, then you have something
to prove, rather than a conclusion.
And even if you can prove your contention, that too is a far cry from
proving that there is anything real about the Christian/Muslim version of
such a deity.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> >
>> > Why do you jump all over the word "exist"? Are you trying to prove
>> > that the sky is sad, because it is "blue"?
>
>
>> Simply because atheists are obsessed with the existence of God
>> when God is actually prior to existence.
>
>> Is logic prior to mathematics?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "prior", which can be used in different
> senses. If you are asking whether the field of mathematics depends on
> there being logic, then yes, logic is prior to mathematics.
>
> If you say that existence is dependent upon God, then you have something
> to prove, rather than a conclusion.
>
> And even if you can prove your contention, that too is a far cry from
> proving that there is anything real about the Christian/Muslim version of
> such a deity.
God is love.
You are not going to understand God
without falling in love with God.
But you can always study the message of God.
Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
Mary
"monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
news:PeKdnbl1daqxXt3V...@ptd.net...
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Why do you jump all over the word "exist"? Are you trying to prove
>>> > that the sky is sad, because it is "blue"?
>>
>>
>>> Simply because atheists are obsessed with the existence of God
>>> when God is actually prior to existence.
>>
>>> Is logic prior to mathematics?
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "prior", which can be used in different
>> senses. If you are asking whether the field of mathematics depends on
>> there being logic, then yes, logic is prior to mathematics.
>>
>> If you say that existence is dependent upon God, then you have something
>> to prove, rather than a conclusion.
>>
>> And even if you can prove your contention, that too is a far cry from
>> proving that there is anything real about the Christian/Muslim version of
>> such a deity.
>
>
> God is love.
> You are not going to understand God
> without falling in love with God.
>
> But you can always study the message of God.
> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
Jesus was just some bloke. Live with it.
monkfish
> "monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
>>
>> God is love.
>> You are not going to understand God
>> without falling in love with God.
>>
>> But you can always study the message of God.
>> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
>
> Jesus was just some bloke. Live with it.
Don't worry about the messenger for now.
Do you like the message of Jesus?
Pastor Frank
news:g1pmsp$d9p$2...@reader2.panix.com...
ourselves", it suffices, that we are certain about Jesus Christ. Referencing
to "themselves" is only done by atheists, for they lack any believable
reference outside of themselves.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Don't worry about the messenger for now.
> Do you like the message of Jesus?
He had many different messages. Most of them form some kind of basis for
our Western, Judeo-Christian culture.
However, many of his other messages are rejected by pretty much everyone:
Most people believe in "An eye for an eye", for example, and reject his
"turn theother cheek" message.
And worldwide, few believe his "I am a supernatural being who can suspend
the laws of physics" stuff.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Referencing
> to "themselves" is only done by atheists,
You are delusional.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
>
> It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
> thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
>
> The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
How about "trust and follow your conscience"?
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about the messenger for now.
>
>> Do you like the message of Jesus?
>
> He had many different messages. Most of them form some kind of basis for
> our Western, Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> However, many of his other messages are rejected by pretty much everyone:
> Most people believe in "An eye for an eye", for example, and reject his
> "turn theother cheek" message.
>
> And worldwide, few believe his "I am a supernatural being who can suspend
> the laws of physics" stuff.
The main message appears to be the reign of God.
But we can easily modernize it with "obey your conscience."
Do you have a conscience?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The main message appears to be the reign of God.
> But we can easily modernize it with "obey your conscience."
Thatis not correct. If one's conscience says "Do NOT turn the other
cheek, but instead, seek revenge!", then one does NOT agree with Jesus'
message. "Obey your conscience" was like nothing said by jesus. It is NOT
his message, main or otherwise.
> Do you have a conscience?
Yes.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
> >
> > It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
> > thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
> >
> > The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
> How about "trust and follow your conscience"?
He never said that.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> The main message appears to be the reign of God.
>> But we can easily modernize it with "obey your conscience."
>
> Thatis not correct. If one's conscience says "Do NOT turn the other
> cheek, but instead, seek revenge!", then one does NOT agree with Jesus'
> message. "Obey your conscience" was like nothing said by jesus. It is NOT
> his message, main or otherwise.
I can understand your concern.
But I was talking to atheists there.
For them, their own conscience is not
a bad place to start.
>> Do you have a conscience?
>
> Yes.
Good for you.
What does the Bible say about conscience?
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>> > In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
>> >
>> > It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
>> > thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
>> >
>> > The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
>
>
>> How about "trust and follow your conscience"?
>
> He never said that.
>
Not literally.
First, if you are a Christian,
you already know better ways to follow Jesus.
Second, even atheists need a way to obey God.
What does the Bible say about conscience?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> What does the Bible say about conscience?
I have no idea.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> What does the Bible say about conscience?
>
> I have no idea.
Can you prove that conscience exists?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
> >
> >> What does the Bible say about conscience?
> >
> > I have no idea.
> Can you prove that conscience exists?
Can I? No.
Likewise, I cannot prove that the universe exists outside of my
consciousness, and I reject Descarte's Cogito.
You have some kind of weird fixation with the word "exist".
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>> > In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What does the Bible say about conscience?
>> >
>> > I have no idea.
>
>
>> Can you prove that conscience exists?
>
> Can I? No.
>
> Likewise, I cannot prove that the universe exists outside of my
> consciousness, and I reject Descarte's Cogito.
>
> You have some kind of weird fixation with the word "exist".
Not me.
It's atheists who have problem with the existence of God.
The have blind faith in all kinds of things.
But they just cannot imagine the existence of
their strange creature they mistake for God.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > You have some kind of weird fixation with the word "exist".
> Not me.
> It's atheists who have problem with the existence of God.
There you go. You mix up concepts, melding them together. The "word
'exist'" and "the existence of God" are two distinct concepts.
I point out your fixation with one, and you respond with the other.
Would it satisfy you if every atheist admitted that God Exists (as a
figment of the imagination of believers)?
You repeatedly ask questions using the word "exist" in ways distinct from
the maner in which Believers use it. And then you try to shoehorn the
answers into an acceptance that your deity "exists".
But because the word is used in distinct ways, you prove nothing.
Hey - Unicorns Exist. They exist in teh imagination. They exit in
legend. They exist in childrens' stories. Unicorns exist. But that says
nothing about the physical world of animals.
Why do you try to get nonbelievers to say God Exists in this manner? Yes,
Virginia, there is a God. He exists in the minds of all who believe. Just
like Tinker Bell. Just like the Tooth Fairy. And jsut like Santa Clause.
You prove nothing to nobody by playing with words.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> > You have some kind of weird fixation with the word "exist".
>
>
>> Not me.
>> It's atheists who have problem with the existence of God.
>
> There you go. You mix up concepts, melding them together. The "word
> 'exist'" and "the existence of God" are two distinct concepts.
>
> I point out your fixation with one, and you respond with the other.
>
> Would it satisfy you if every atheist admitted that God Exists (as a
> figment of the imagination of believers)?
>
> You repeatedly ask questions using the word "exist" in ways distinct from
> the maner in which Believers use it. And then you try to shoehorn the
> answers into an acceptance that your deity "exists".
>
> But because the word is used in distinct ways, you prove nothing.
>
> Hey - Unicorns Exist. They exist in teh imagination. They exit in
> legend. They exist in childrens' stories. Unicorns exist. But that says
> nothing about the physical world of animals.
>
> Why do you try to get nonbelievers to say God Exists in this manner? Yes,
> Virginia, there is a God. He exists in the minds of all who believe. Just
> like Tinker Bell. Just like the Tooth Fairy. And jsut like Santa Clause.
>
> You prove nothing to nobody by playing with words.
You misunderstood me.
I have no interest in proving the existence of God.
God is prior to existence.
You need God to comprehend existence.
As for the existence God as expected by most people,
I would say the following.
I think God is mostly misunderstood.
What we see is not God,
but fuzzy pictures of something
alleged by people to be God.
Let's put it this way.
We don't know God's true mode of existence.
I would rather say that God is prior to existence
but as most people here insist that
God has to exist to be believed,
I am willing to say that God can appear to us
and in that case God exists for us.
But God reveals Himself to us
in whatever way He pleases.
God can appear as a dove.
As love, as a spirit, and even as a whisper.
Are you going to say now that
God has to exist in the mode prescribed by you?
Pastor Frank
news:g1ubq7$qvc$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Referencing to "themselves" is only done by atheists,
>
> You are delusional.
>
psychology, nor presented your own credentials in the discipline.
Pastor Frank
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
>>
>> It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
>> thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
>>
>> The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
>
"supernatural", which most certainly is not "hogwash".
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> Sorry, but our Christian "God is love" and love is by nature
> "supernatural", which most certainly is not "hogwash".
"I am a human emotion" is hogwash, supernatural or not.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g1ubq7$qvc$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Referencing to "themselves" is only done by atheists,
> >
> > You are delusional.
> >
> Thanks for the confirmation. You didn't reference to any authority in
> psychology, nor presented your own credentials in the discipline.
None are necessary. The conclusion is obvious.
Adonis
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:9b863$4847cbdf$d1d89a42$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
> "monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
> news:AIWdnV4kt4Ifx97V...@ptd.net...
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.religion.christian monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think the message of Jesus is real enough for you?
>>>
>>> It depends on what message you speak of. The whole "Love your enemies"
>>> thing is quite radical and impractical, but worth considering.
>>>
>>> The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
>>
> Sorry, but our Christian "God is love" and love is by nature
> "supernatural", which most certainly is not "hogwash".
Yes Frank it is. "supernatural" is hogwash.
Pastor Frank
news:g28kq4$6qe$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
>> >
>> Sorry, but our Christian "God is love" and love is by nature
>> "supernatural", which most certainly is not "hogwash".
>
> "I am a human emotion" is hogwash, supernatural or not.
>
need be, is neither hogwash nor supernatural. I don't know which God you
are talking about, but my God is perfectly natural. What about yours?
Pastor Frank
news:g28ksg$6qe$2...@reader2.panix.com...
and fanatics" are certain their conclusions are obvious.
Thom Madura
THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
First - it is false.
THe christ is part of god - no beginning and no end - in every mass I
know of. THe christ was NOT born in Bethlehem - and did nmot DIE on the
cross - he couldn't die - he is immortal. So - a human suit he came in
did - he knew that there would be no real sacrifice.
Second - it is stupid
If God really wanted to forgive us a sin which none of us were around to
commit anyway - since there was no Eden - no original sin to begin with
- all ha had to do was say so.
Third - it is wrong
If god is fair - then he would not blame one person for the sins of
another - so there was no real reason for all this nonsense to begin with.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g28kq4$6qe$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The whole "I am a supernatural being" thing is obvious hogwash.
> >> >
> >> Sorry, but our Christian "God is love" and love is by nature
> >> "supernatural", which most certainly is not "hogwash".
> >
> > "I am a human emotion" is hogwash, supernatural or not.
> >
> I agree, but I am Jesus demonstrating the ideal of love to the death if
> need be, is neither hogwash nor supernatural. I don't know which God you
> are talking about, but my God is perfectly natural. What about yours?
Your "LOVE" does not exist in scripture. The Christian/Moslem god is NOT
natural, but rather, supernatural.
You say that God is Love, Love is supernatural, but god is not
supernatural. You are either confused, or you reject rationality.
Or you are just ful of shit, and will say anything off the top of your
head, whether consistent or inconsistent with your past statements.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
> for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
Naw, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god thinks that to show love, one kills
one's OWN son.
God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove his love.
God killed his own son to prove his love.
If someone said to you "I love you so much I killed my son for you", what
woud you think?
Andrew
> In alt.religion.christian Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
>> for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
>
> Naw, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god thinks that to show love, one kills
> one's OWN son.
>
> God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove his love.
And then prevented him from doing so.
> God killed his own son to prove his love.
No - that was the Romans
Thom Madura
> On 2008-06-09 20:50:20 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
>>> for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
>>
>> Naw, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god thinks that to show love, one kills
>> one's OWN son.
>>
>> God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove his love.
>
> And then prevented him from doing so.
GOD isn't the one who tempts man to sin. In the story - god was evil.
monkfish
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2008-06-09 20:50:20 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
>>
>>> In alt.religion.christian Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
>>>> for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
>>>
>>> Naw, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god thinks that to show love, one kills
>>> one's OWN son.
>>>
>>> God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove his love.
>>
>> And then prevented him from doing so.
>
>
> GOD isn't the one who tempts man to sin. In the story - god was evil.
It's possible that he just thought he heard God.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2008-06-09 20:50:20 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
>>
>>> In alt.religion.christian Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> THere is something massochistic with the statement - to prove my love
>>>> for you I will allow you to KILL my son?
>>>
>>> Naw, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god thinks that to show love, one kills
>>> one's OWN son.
>>>
>>> God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove his love.
>>
>> And then prevented him from doing so.
>
>
> GOD isn't the one who tempts man to sin. In the story - god was evil.
Really? I don't think so. You have to look at the story of Abraham in
context. The society Abraham grew up in did not regard child sacrifice
as evil or sinful. To a man of Abraham's time and place the idea that
his god was calling him to sacrifice his child would be a matter of
great anguish, but not an indication that his god was evil.
It is God's recantation of his previous instruction that defines child
sacrifice as sinful where Abraham did not see it as such before. In the
context, God's recantation means "Look Abraham, the way you've been
taught to demonstrate your faith in the divine has involved being
willing to sacrifice your child. You've shown me, in your terms , that
you have faith. Now I'm telling you you've been taught wrong. Don't you
- or any of your descendents - ever do that again"
Or have you failed to notice that the Abraham/Isaac event is given
emphasis in a collection of writings that consistently regards child
sacrifice as abhorrent?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > God killed his own son to prove his love.
> No - that was the Romans
So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
resurrection - not according to His will?
What sort of Christian are you?
> >
> > If someone said to you "I love you so much I killed my son for you", what
> > woud you think?
--
Andrew
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>>> God killed his own son to prove his love.
>
>> No - that was the Romans
>
> So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
> resurrection - not according to His will?
>
> What sort of Christian are you?
It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
children.
That kind of Christian.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> On 2008-06-10 01:58:03 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
> > In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> God killed his own son to prove his love.
> >
> >> No - that was the Romans
> >
> > So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
> > resurrection - not according to His will?
> >
> > What sort of Christian are you?
> It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
> same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
> children.
Are you saying that God did't know whether Jesus would die for our sins,
or live to a ripe old age?
And why do you say that being tortured to death is "the same kind of fate"
as suffered by all other people? I don't understand what you could mean.
Andrew
>>> So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
>>> resurrection - not according to His will?
>>>
>>> What sort of Christian are you?
>
>> It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
>> same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
>> children.
>
> Are you saying that God did't know whether Jesus would die for our sins,
> or live to a ripe old age?
Yers, he knew. And the very fact that he knew made it inevitable.
>
> And why do you say that being tortured to death is "the same kind of fate"
> as suffered by all other people? I don't understand what you could mean.
Because people in this world do get tortured to death. I didn't say
that all humans are tortured to death, but that all humans endure pain
and suffering.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >>> So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
> >>> resurrection - not according to His will?
> >>>
> >>> What sort of Christian are you?
> >
> >> It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
> >> same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
> >> children.
> >
> > Are you saying that God did't know whether Jesus would die for our sins,
> > or live to a ripe old age?
> Yes, he knew. And the very fact that he knew made it inevitable.
So it was God's will that Jesus should die for our sins. He gave his only
begotten son to die because he loves us.
If I love somebody, should I kill my son to prove it?
Andrew
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>> On 2008-06-10 23:28:47 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
>
>>>>> So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
>>>>> resurrection - not according to His will?
>>>>>
>>>>> What sort of Christian are you?
>>>
>>>> It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
>>>> same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
>>>> children.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that God did't know whether Jesus would die for our sins,
>>> or live to a ripe old age?
>
>> Yes, he knew. And the very fact that he knew made it inevitable.
>
> So it was God's will that Jesus should die for our sins. He gave his only
> begotten son to die because he loves us.
>
> If I love somebody, should I kill my son to prove it?
No, of course you shouldn't. And neither did God. Jesus was killed by
the Romans. Can we get that bit understood first?
Once you've got that, can you accept that Romans killed other people too?
Thom Madura
No - god sent his son down to be killed. (All-knowing - you know)
Makes little difference who killed him - he knew what would happen -
according to your religion at least.
IF he didn't want his son killed - he shouldn't have sent him down.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > So it was God's will that Jesus should die for our sins. He gave his only
> > begotten son to die because he loves us.
> >
> > If I love somebody, should I kill my son to prove it?
> No, of course you shouldn't. And neither did God. Jesus was killed by
> the Romans. Can we get that bit understood first?
I thought that he gave his only begotten son to die for out sins? So
even if he didn't kill his son personally, he made the arrangements,
didn't he?
> Once you've got that, can you accept that Romans killed other people too?
The Romans suck.
Fr...@pastor.it
> IF he didn't want his son killed - he shouldn't have sent him down.
But that was God's plan for the salvation of our eternal souls. It was His
plan all along that Jesus would be crucified and resurrected. He did it
because he so loved the World. Jesus HAD to die as he did, because God
loves us and does not want to damn us to eternal suffering.
Thom Madura
Sure Frank
So - what you are saying is that your god loved you so much - instead of
coming himself - he sent his son - knowing that he would get himself
killed.
If your god loved you so much - why didn't he just FORGIVE you for the
sin you never committed anyway because you were not on the earth when
any of this happened!
What is "loving" about sending in his son to botch the job up so that he
would get killed? Still is nonsense to me.
It still says - I love YOU so much that to prove I'm going to let you
kill Andrew. That is just plain nuts.
Fr...@pastor.it
If you loved God instead of Satan you would understand.
Andrew
Makes all the difference. It makes no sense in logic to advance the
following argument:
1. God knew that Jesus would be killed.
2. God could prevent Jesus from being killed.
These are logically mutually incompatible statements.
Thom Madura
> meant to have you belong to it -
>
> Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this:
>
> "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
> apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
> ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
> flood."
>
> THe rest of you are not true Christians and will end up in your hell.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>> On 2008-06-10 23:28:47 +0100, EskW...@spamblock.panix.com said:
>
>> >>> So he didn't give his only begotten son? The crucifiction and
>> >>> resurrection - not according to His will?
>> >>>
>> >>> What sort of Christian are you?
>> >
>> >> It was God's will that his son should run the same risks, endure the
>> >> same pains and toils and suffer the same kind of fate as all his other
>> >> children.
>> >
>> > Are you saying that God did't know whether Jesus would die for our
>> > sins, or live to a ripe old age?
>
>> Yes, he knew. And the very fact that he knew made it inevitable.
>
> So it was God's will that Jesus should die for our sins. He gave his only
> begotten son to die because he loves us.
>
> If I love somebody, should I kill my son to prove it?
You are not God.
Just loving your enemies will do.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
But what you studiously overlook is that God planned and approved of jesus
being killed. Stopping it or not ain't got nothing to do with it; He
orchestrated the whole thing.
God was NOT a passive player in the Crucifiction and the Resurrection.
To intimate otherwise is heresy.
monkfish
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> 1. God knew that Jesus would be killed.
>
>> 2. God could prevent Jesus from being killed.
>
>> These are logically mutually incompatible statements.
>
> But what you studiously overlook is that God planned and approved of jesus
> being killed. Stopping it or not ain't got nothing to do with it; He
> orchestrated the whole thing.
>
> God was NOT a passive player in the Crucifiction and the Resurrection.
> To intimate otherwise is heresy.
What makes you think God thinks just like you do?
Andrew
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> 1. God knew that Jesus would be killed.
>
>> 2. God could prevent Jesus from being killed.
>
>> These are logically mutually incompatible statements.
>
> But what you studiously overlook is that God planned and approved of jesus
> being killed. Stopping it or not ain't got nothing to do with it; He
> orchestrated the whole thing.
>
> God was NOT a passive player in the Crucifiction and the Resurrection.
> To intimate otherwise is heresy.
No - God was certainly not a passive player. His will was that his son
should run the same risks, endure the same kinds of suffering and go
through the same painful process of dying that (some) other humans go
through. In otrher words - that his son's experience should be
genuinely human, with all the suffering that entails.
Did God 'plan' Jesus's crucifixion? I don't think it says that anywhere
in the Bible.
Adonis
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008061320515643658-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
The prophecies in the OT certainly do give that impression.
Andrew
Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
Adonis
do very much imply planning and not a prediction..
Andrew
I don't think they do, and I look forward to your textual analysis of
appropraite passages.
Thom Madura
The Baltimore Catchism says that god is All-knowing - Past, present, and
future. That is a tenet of the religion. Either he knows - or he doesn't.
THe basic Paradox of this is that if he KNOWS the future =- he is
powerless to change it - which means he is not almighty.
Thom Madura
The whole old testament is a legend at best - myth at most - and surely
greatly exaggerated over the millienia that is was not written down. At
the time the first jewish tanakh was written - during King David's reign
- it was already 3-4000 years after Moses supposedly lived. Today - we
have the ability to record things - and yet we cannot be sure of where
George Washington slept. After even 1000 years - these stories were
obviously turned into "whoppers". THey have no support in the historical
record at all.
At the time the christian bible was compiled - there were no autograph
copies of the old testament - and no autograph copies of the source
material from David's time - much less from the real time.
WE also have no autograph copies of the New Testament - no autograph
copies of ANY of the source material for it - only a few COPIES of
apostolic letters from the 3rd century - which cannot be proven to be
real copies even.
Then =- you are arguing over whether the bible knows the mindset of an
imaginary god that was not on earth.
This is nonsense
Adonis
2 Samuel 7:12-13
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
> think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
> understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
Howzabout "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
son..."
"He gave". That's not "His son was taken from him".
It is the active form, and not passive. It does not say "Jesus was
given". He gave. Who gave? God gave.
It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins. Presumably, He
did not give him to die of old age.
Why is this some kind of difficult thing for you? It was God's Plan, and
God is infallible and otherwise practically perfect in every way.
default
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:47:42 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins.
Maybe someone could clear up how an execution or murder absolves sin?
That just sounds like so much Catholic Church hokum.
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Thom Madura
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
>> think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
>> understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
>
> Howzabout "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> son..."
>
> "He gave". That's not "His son was taken from him".
>
> It is the active form, and not passive. It does not say "Jesus was
> given". He gave. Who gave? God gave.
>
> It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins. Presumably, He
> did not give him to die of old age.
>
> Why is this some kind of difficult thing for you? It was God's Plan, and
> God is infallible and otherwise practically perfect in every way.
>
Yipes - does that mean he sings like Julie Andrews?
Andrew
Millennia for parts of it. Most? I don't think so.
> At the time the first jewish tanakh was written - during King David's
> reign - it was already 3-4000 years after Moses supposedly lived. Today
> - we have the ability to record things - and yet we cannot be sure of
> where George Washington slept. After even 1000 years - these stories
> were obviously turned into "whoppers". THey have no support in the
> historical record at all.
>
> At the time the christian bible was compiled - there were no autograph
> copies of the old testament - and no autograph copies of the source
> material from David's time - much less from the real time.
>
> WE also have no autograph copies of the New Testament - no autograph
> copies of ANY of the source material for it - only a few COPIES of
> apostolic letters from the 3rd century - which cannot be proven to be
> real copies even.
>
> Then =- you are arguing over whether the bible knows the mindset of an
> imaginary god that was not on earth.
>
> This is nonsense
It is if you assume that God is imaginary.
Andrew
>>>>> The prophecies in the OT certainly do give that impression.
>>>>
>>>> Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
>>>> think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
>>>> understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
>>>>
>>> You can call it misleading if you like. The fact is, the wording of the
>>> stories do very much imply planning and not a prediction..
>>
>> I don't think they do, and I look forward to your textual analysis of
>> appropraite passages.
>>
> Isaiah 7:14
Oh dear. Oh dearie dearie me. Isaiah was writing about his own times
and the great troubles that were to come upon Israel. Matthew saw in
this prophecy a resonance with the birth of Christ.
> 2 Samuel 7:12-13
Oh dear. Oh dearie dearie me (II). This text clearly, overtly and
evidently refers to Solomon.
Andrew
>> Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
>> think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
>> understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
>>
>
> The Baltimore Catchism says that god is All-knowing - Past, present,
> and future. That is a tenet of the religion. Either he knows - or he
> doesn't.
Agreed
>
> THe basic Paradox of this is that if he KNOWS the future =- he is
> powerless to change it - which means he is not almighty.
Depends what you mean by "almighty". It certainly doesn't mean that God
can do things which are logically incoherent. That's not a limitation
of power, though.
Andrew
> In alt.religion.christian Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> Do they? They may express God's foreknowledge (actually, for God, I
>> think the 'fore' bit is misleading) and may prepare people for an
>> understanding of the events to come, but that does not imply planning.
>
> Howzabout "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> son..."
>
> "He gave". That's not "His son was taken from him".
>
> It is the active form, and not passive. It does not say "Jesus was
> given". He gave. Who gave? God gave.
>
> It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins. Presumably, He
> did not give him to die of old age.
>
> Why is this some kind of difficult thing for you? It was God's Plan, and
> God is infallible and otherwise practically perfect in every way.
Yes God gave Jesus to humanity - to live as a human being, to suffer as
a human being and to die as a human being. Your 'presumably', though,
is telling. And no - this isn't difficult for me at all.
Andrew
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:47:42 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
>
>> It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins.
>
> Maybe someone could clear up how an execution or murder absolves sin?
>
> That just sounds like so much Catholic Church hokum.
Now that's a whole other can of worms. The version that works for me is
that by Christ accepting a wholly human life, and suffering the
consequences of human sin as any other victim of human sin, God set
human sin aside.
Adonis
would take. Been there done that. Just as you make my "analysis" as wrong, I aim
the same to you.
Adonis
brought salvation long before jesus. maybe you should read Frazer's "Golden
Bough" about Adonis. Maybe you should read the history books on Mithraic
festivals. God/jesus stuff is a rewrite from really old writings, only this time
it was a block buster.
Andrew
>> Oh dear. Oh dearie dearie me. Isaiah was writing about his own times
>> and the great troubles that were to come upon Israel. Matthew saw in
>> this prophecy a resonance with the birth of Christ.
>>
>>> 2 Samuel 7:12-13
>>
>> Oh dear. Oh dearie dearie me (II). This text clearly, overtly and
>> evidently refers to Solomon.
>>
>>
> Oh dear. Oh dearie me. That is why I show only two, I knew the
> direction you would take. Been there done that. Just as you make my
> "analysis" as wrong, I aim the same to you.
Whatever that means
Andrew
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008061416034638165-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2008-06-14 12:55:45 +0100, default <def...@defaulter.net> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:47:42 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone could clear up how an execution or murder absolves sin?
>>>
>>> That just sounds like so much Catholic Church hokum.
>>
>> Now that's a whole other can of worms. The version that works for me is
>> that by Christ accepting a wholly human life, and suffering the
>> consequences of human sin as any other victim of human sin, God set
>> human sin aside.
>>
> Being that jesus was with out sin, he can not suffer the consequence.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. The death of Jesus was able to absolve
human sin because it was a consequence of human sin - not Jesus's.
> Dionysus brought salvation long before jesus. maybe you should read
> Frazer's "Golden Bough" about Adonis.
Have done. No serious anthropologist takes Frazer seriously now though.
> Maybe you should read the history books on Mithraic festivals.
> God/jesus stuff is a rewrite from really old writings, only this time
> it was a block buster.
You make a lot of assumptions about what I have and haven't read, don't you?
Adonis
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> It is if you assume that God is imaginary.
It is too, if you take the default position and assume that you don't know
one way or the other, and are looking for evidence.
ONLY if you look at it with a biased eye, assuming that it is true before
even reading it, is it anything other than nonsense.
Adonis
> On 2008-06-14 16:47:10 +0100, "Adonis" <a...@aol.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
>> news:2008061416034638165-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>> On 2008-06-14 12:55:45 +0100, default <def...@defaulter.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:47:42 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It clearly says that God "gave" Jesus to die for our sins.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone could clear up how an execution or murder absolves sin?
>>>>
>>>> That just sounds like so much Catholic Church hokum.
>>>
>>> Now that's a whole other can of worms. The version that works for me is that
>>> by Christ accepting a wholly human life, and suffering the consequences of
>>> human sin as any other victim of human sin, God set human sin aside.
>>>
>> Being that jesus was with out sin, he can not suffer the consequence.
>
> Perhaps I was not clear enough. The death of Jesus was able to absolve human
> sin because it was a consequence of human sin - not Jesus's.
I knew what you meant. That was a statement designed to draw out more from you.
>
>> Dionysus brought salvation long before jesus. maybe you should read Frazer's
>> "Golden Bough" about Adonis.
>
> Have done. No serious anthropologist takes Frazer seriously now though.
Yes there is controversy over his books, not just this one, and mostly from
religious scholars. No surprise there. Just as any author that has done works on
the same subject with the same conclusions.
>
>> Maybe you should read the history books on Mithraic festivals. God/jesus
>> stuff is a rewrite from really old writings, only this time it was a block
>> buster.
>
> You make a lot of assumptions about what I have and haven't read, don't you?
There is no assumption, it is an observation I have made based on what you
accept and what you do not accept. Which appears that if it supports your
philosophy it's ok and true. If it does not support your philosophy you
disregard it as something not taken seriously, like Frazer's work.
>
>
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > powerless to change it - which means he is not almighty.
> Depends what you mean by "almighty". It certainly doesn't mean that God
> can do things which are logically incoherent. That's not a limitation
> of power, though.
Why assume he is powerless to change it? If you knew how a pinball would
react to each bumper, and were quick enough and skilled enough to realize
a moment-by-moment presage of its next move in your head, you could shake
the machine perfectly to make the ball do what you prefer. Good players
can do a bit of this.
God could play a perfect game. I assume that the God imagined by the
Christians and the Moslems can do this.
He knows the future, and has the ability to make changes as he goes along.
He saw all along what would happen to jesus. He likely could do whatever
He wanted to change the story, on a moment-by-moment basis. He wanted
things to go down precisely as they did, becuase he so loved the world. At
any time he could have changed anything that he wanted changed, so that
Jesus would die on the cross - or not.
Hey - he had to harden pharoah's heart several times. As unpredictable
humans exercise their free will, God sees the future change
simultaneously. So he can see the future, is powerful enough to change
it, and there is no contradiction between the two.
So he fully intended and desired that his only begotten son would die a
cruel and bloody death. He intended this because he loves us so much. Or
so say Xtians...
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Now that's a whole other can of worms. The version that works for me is
> that by Christ accepting a wholly human life, and suffering the
> consequences of human sin as any other victim of human sin, God set
> human sin aside.
Being nailed to a cross is "the consequences of human sin [setting aside,
for the momet, the "fact' that Jesus led a sinless life...] as any
other victim of human sin"?
Are you insane? Being nailed to a cross has NOTHING to do with "the
consequencs of human sin".
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Perhaps I was not clear enough. The death of Jesus was able to absolve
> human sin because it was a consequence of human sin - not Jesus's.
So let me get this straight: Human sin was absolved by Jesus' experience
of human sin? So presumably, had someone stolen Jesus' sandals, causing
him to have to walk shoeless, we all could hae been saved just as
effectively?
If not, then why not?