Does Satan still have access heaven?
Bible John
no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my single
bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
What do you say?
Job 1:6-9 KJV
[Job 1:6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [7] And the LORD said unto
Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going
to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. [8] And the LORD
said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like
him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and
escheweth evil?
Also appears in chapter 2
Job 1:6-8 HCSB
[Job 1:6] One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan also came with them. [7] The LORD asked Satan, “Where have you come
from?”
“From roaming through the earth,” Satan answered Him, “and walking around
on it.”
[8] Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? No one
else on earth is like him, a man of perfect integrity, who fears God and turns
away from evil.”
--
Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
[Jn 11:25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and
the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Pastor Dave
<johnw...@yahoo.comPDA> spake thusly:
>This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that Satan
>no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
>he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my single
>bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
No, he doesn't. He was cast out in the first century.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree;
he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that
are planted in the house of Jehovah shall flourish
in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:12-13
Terrell D Lewis
"Bible John" <johnw...@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:11285722...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that
> Satan
> no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard
> that
> he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my
> single
> bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
>
> What do you say?
>
That you sure don't know very much for someone who fancies himself an
Inquisitor who can determine who is or is not "saved."
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Robibnikoff
"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
news:ghkak1p9f4d71fgmg...@4ax.com...
snip
>
> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
> Christians of various sins.
>
> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that? Just
off of the top of your head?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Grinder
> "john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
> news:ghkak1p9f4d71fgmg...@4ax.com...
>
> snip
>
>>Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
>>dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
>>Christians of various sins.
>>
>>He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
>>Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
>
>
> Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that? Just
> off of the top of your head?
More likely from a region a couple of feet south of there.
Bible Bob
John,
Good question.
The language in Job is figurative as evidenced by the application of
human attributes to Satan who is spirit and who has no form less he
comes into concretion. What's interesting to me is that it is an
Anthromorphic like figure; but Anthromorphic figures are usually
attributed only to God. The only other close figure that I can think
of would be Prosopopoeia (Personification) where the absent are spoken
of (or to) as present; when the dead are spoken of as alive; or when
anything is addressed as a person. A good example of Personification
would be the the personification of wisdom in the book of Proverbs
where wisdom is presented in human form.
Logically, Satan who is Lucifer would not need to take human form to
appear before God. The passage does not say that the angels took
their stations "in heaven." Satan and one third of the angels of
heaven were cast down to the earth before the six day period when God
made the earth. Satan is now the god of this world and to my
knowledge there is no passage which specifically states that he has
access to Heaven - the seat of God's power.
However, there are two heavens. There is the created heavens of
Genesis 1:1 and the made Heaven of Genesis 1:6-8. The former being
the dwelling place of spirit beings and the latter being the expanse
above the surface of the earth. It is this latter definition that
causes misunderstandings. Most people think of Heaven as a place
above the earth and some say it is a place outside the universe.
However, my studies lead me to believe that the heaven where spirit
beings dwell is more like another dimension than it is a physical
place. It is not a physical place because it is not physical; but
spiritual.
God can be in all places at one time; not just because He is big; but
because his "nature" is not subject to the laws of nature. Satan can
only be in one place at one time which is presently on the earth where
he will someday die. Satan is limited to operating within the natural
laws that God put into place when he made the earth. That was part of
the price he paid when Adam transfered dominion of the earth to him.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
john w <j-w
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>
>"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>news:ghkak1p9f4d71fgmg...@4ax.com...
>
>snip
>>
>> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
>> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
>> Christians of various sins.
>>
>> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
>> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
>
>Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that? Just
>off of the top of your head?
Rev 12:10
God bless!
john w
Bible Bob
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:16:53 -0500, "Bible John"
><johnw...@yahoo.comPDA> spake thusly:
>
>
>>This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that Satan
>>no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
>>he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my single
>>bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
>
>No, he doesn't. He was cast out in the first century.
Chapter and verse please.
Libertarius
Bible John wrote:
> This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that Satan
> no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
> he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my single
> bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Job 1:6-9 KJV
>
> [Job 1:6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
> before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [7] And the LORD said unto
> Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going
> to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. [8] And the LORD
> said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like
> him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and
> escheweth evil?
>
> Also appears in chapter 2
>
> Job 1:6-8 HCSB
>
> [Job 1:6] One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
> and Satan also came with them. [7] The LORD asked Satan, ⌠Where have you come
> from?■
> ⌠From roaming through the earth,■ Satan answered Him, ⌠and walking around
> on it.■
> [8] Then the LORD said to Satan, ⌠Have you considered My servant Job? No one
> else on earth is like him, a man of perfect integrity, who fears God and turns
> away from evil.■
===>It is a FABLE.
For the majority in the world
it is easier to live with the pseudo-certainties of tradition
and its simple fables than to understand and accept
the probabilities of science and its complex laws. -- L.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
snip
> >> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
> >> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
> >> Christians of various sins.
> >>
> >> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
> >> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
> >
> >Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that?
Just
> >off of the top of your head?
>
> Rev 12:10
And it says that exact thing you wrote right there? Whatever. If I can dig
up my bible, I'll take a look. I'm not really that interested. Just
curious to see if you could back up your bullshit for once.
BTW, if Satan is "constantly before the throne", then when does he find the
time to do his dirty work to those silly humans? Sounds like he has his
hand full.
Grinder
> "john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
> news:4qqak1ledae6er6rf...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:38:23 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>><witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>
> >"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
>>>>Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
>>>>dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
>>>>Christians of various sins.
>>>>
>>>>He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
>>>>Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
>>>
>>>Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that?
>
> Just
>
>>>off of the top of your head?
>>
>>Rev 12:10
>
>
> And it says that exact thing you wrote right there? Whatever. If I can dig
> up my bible, I'll take a look. I'm not really that interested. Just
> curious to see if you could back up your bullshit for once.
>
> BTW, if Satan is "constantly before the throne", then when does he find the
> time to do his dirty work to those silly humans? Sounds like he has his
> hand full.
The tail is prehensile.
Vernon
> This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that Satan
> no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
> he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my single
> bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Job 1:6-9 KJV
>
> [Job 1:6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
> before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [7] And the LORD said unto
> Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going
> to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. [8] And the LORD
> said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like
> him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and
> escheweth evil?
>
> Also appears in chapter 2
>
> Job 1:6-8 HCSB
>
> [Job 1:6] One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
> and Satan also came with them. [7] The LORD asked Satan, “Where have you come
> from?”
> “From roaming through the earth,” Satan answered Him, “and walking around
> on it.”
> [8] Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? No one
> else on earth is like him, a man of perfect integrity, who fears God and turns
> away from evil.”
>
>
The Watch Dog
john w wrote:
>
> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
> Christians of various sins.
>
> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
Um, doesn't God already know these whether these accusations are true
or false, before Jesus steps up? In fact, before Satan mentionsthem?
Whose benefit is this odd theatrical charade for?
Grinder
> x-no-archive: yes
> On 6 Oct 2005 16:03:54 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>
> God sort out those details. They don't concern me.
>
> I have all I can deal with to live the hand I've been dealt.
>
> Perhaps you'd be wiser to worry about YOUR behind than be bothering
> with worrying about what Satan is doing in heaven, and why he gets
> into so many debates with Christ and the Father.
>
> I mean, how exactly does all that affect YOU?
That's it jw, when someone bristles you with the illogic of your
beliefs, you can at least take comfort in the conviction that they'll
burn in hell.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:55:01 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>>
>>news:4qqak1ledae6er6rf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:38:23 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>>> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>>
>>snip
>>> >> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
>>> >> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
>>> >> Christians of various sins.
>>> >>
>>> >> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
>>> >> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
>>> >
>>> >Um, that's a rather interesting story. How did you come up with that?
>>Just
>>> >off of the top of your head?
>>>
>>> Rev 12:10
>>
>>And it says that exact thing you wrote right there? Whatever. If I can
>>dig
>>up my bible, I'll take a look. I'm not really that interested.
>
You actually had one? That's a first.
--
------
Robibnikoff
"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:55:01 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
>>
>>BTW, if Satan is "constantly before the throne", then when does he find
>>the
>>time to do his dirty work to those silly humans? Sounds like he has his
>>hand full.
>
> No intelligent, educated, informed Christian (note all 3 adjectives
> leave you out), would say that Satan himself does "all the dirty
> work". He, as a finite created being, can only be one place at a time.
> As you should know, being one of his followers.
Ooooh, yet another weatherly lie. How unsurprising and predictable.
> He has a HUGE horde of demons, however, and they can be virtually
> anywhere. There are countless demons, outnumbered only by the angels.
> The scriptures say that "1/3" of the angels of heaven left heaven with
> Satan at the Fall.
Uh huh. Like I'd take that malarkey seriously.
--
------
duke
wrote:
Ok, now I see. You have nothing to say from a religious basis, so you're just
going to insult.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
>
>"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>news:4rdbk1d0t3bal6gql...@4ax.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:55:01 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>>>
>>>BTW, if Satan is "constantly before the throne", then when does he find
>>>the
>>>time to do his dirty work to those silly humans? Sounds like he has his
>>>hand full.
>>
>> No intelligent, educated, informed Christian (note all 3 adjectives
>> leave you out), would say that Satan himself does "all the dirty
>> work". He, as a finite created being, can only be one place at a time.
>> As you should know, being one of his followers.
>
>Ooooh, yet another weatherly lie. How unsurprising and predictable.
How unsurprising and predictable that you don't know what he's taking about, and
so you just insult.
>> He has a HUGE horde of demons, however, and they can be virtually
>> anywhere. There are countless demons, outnumbered only by the angels.
>> The scriptures say that "1/3" of the angels of heaven left heaven with
>> Satan at the Fall.
>
>Uh huh. Like I'd take that malarkey seriously.
duke
DOC WATSON
<biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in this
here little old new 'froup:
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called
the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the
word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the
death.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.
Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is
come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he
hath but a short time.
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from
heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless
pit.
Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out
of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air
were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
Rev 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and
unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass
of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only
those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was the
torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find
it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
Rev 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared
unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and
their faces were as the faces of men.
Rev 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were
as the teeth of lions.
Rev 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron;
and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many
horses running to battle.
Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were
stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the
bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the
Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Rev 9:12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more
hereafter.
Jesus also said:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not
in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
The Bible tells us that murderers, liars, etc will not see the kingdom
of God.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left
their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
No, Satan HAS NO ACCESS to Heaven.
Satan USED TO ----
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and
from walking up and down in it.
but not any longer.
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
DOC WATSON
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> said the following funny stuff in
this here little old new 'froup:
>
>===>It is a FABLE.
YOU may call it a 'fable' if you prefer to. Christians, however, DO
NOT.
DOC WATSON
said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
LEGION lolly-gagged about and made the following ridiculous comment:
>> Perhaps you'd be wiser to worry about YOUR behind than be bothering
>> with worrying about what Satan is doing in heaven, and why he gets
>> into so many debates with Christ and the Father.
>
>That's it jw, when someone bristles you with the illogic of your
>beliefs, you can at least take comfort in the conviction that they'll
>burn in hell.
The thing is, Grinder- Satan was cast out from God's presence.So were
those angels who followed him.
He has no access to Heaven any longer, and he knows his days are
numbered. The angels who were cast out with Satan ALSO are barred from
Heaven, and neither they, nor Satan 'debate with God' in Heaven.
Try to outwit God, yes - they do try to-- but they do not and cannot
'debate with Him'.
DOC WATSON
little old new 'froup:
> >"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>
>snip
>> >> Yes, Satan still has access to heaven. While he is not allowed to
>> >> dwell there, he is constantly before the throne accusing various
>> >> Christians of various sins.
>> >>
>> >> He accuses us, the risen Christ steps forward as our advocate, and
>> >> Satan is escorted to the nearest exit once again.
^^^^^^If I hadn't seen this I would not have believed anyone claiming
to be a Christian ever said it!!!!!
Thank you for leaving this intact.
LEGION would have been prudent to post the actual verse instead of
using the name and number routine... but I can only imagine his FEAR
of being exposed a liar again prevented him from doing so.
It states:
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come
salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of
his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which
accused them before our God day and night.
Satan can CAUSE people to be falsely accused day and night all he
likes ---- but he has NO access to Heaven, whether Legion prefers to
falsely claim he does or not!
It makes as much sense as saying Jesus cast out a satanic spirit from
a person, but that spirit simply possessed the person again,
over-ruling the Lord.
It cannot be done.
As well:
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of
this world be cast out.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called
the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
As usual, instead of Legion leading anyone TO the Lord, all he does is
lie continually and lead them further away :o(
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"DOC WATSON" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
news:l46dk1h21usu428hb...@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:37:14 -0600, Libertarius
: <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> said the following funny stuff in
: this here little old new 'froup:
:
: >
: >===>It is a FABLE.
:
:
: YOU may call it a 'fable' if you prefer to. Christians, however, DO
: NOT.
You can't both be right about it. Is it a fable, or not? And how do you
know?
JM
The Watch Dog
john w wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
> >
> God sort out those details. They don't concern me.
>
> I have all I can deal with to live the hand I've been dealt.
>
> with worrying about what Satan is doing in heaven, and why he gets
> into so many debates with Christ and the Father.
>
In other words: you have all the time in the world to post to a
half-dozen newsgroups this image you have of Satan making accusations
against Christians to God, and Jesus jumping up to refute them.
But you don't have a spare second to actually THINK about this belief,
since you've alrady got "all you can deal with."
You were the one who posted the original description where thousands of
people could read it. Then, when I asked about it, all you could come
up with was "How exactly does all that affect YOU?".
If you don't think it affects people, maybe you shouldn't be
broadcasting it to them. This would leave you more time to deal with
the hand you've been dealt. The added benefit it that you wouldn't look
so much like one of those people who is absolutely certain in his
beliefs, but never seems to have thought even one of them through.
DOC WATSON
fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> said the following funny stuff in this
here little old new 'froup:
>
>You can't both be right about it. Is it a fable, or not? And how do you
>know?
>
>JM
MY GOD is real. As A Christian, I believe the Bible.
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"DOC WATSON" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
: On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:23:32 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
: fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> said the following funny stuff in this
: here little old new 'froup:
:
: >
: >You can't both be right about it. Is it a fable, or not? And how do you
: >know?
: >
: >JM
:
:
: MY GOD is real. As A Christian, I believe the Bible.
That's very nice, but please note that I used the word "know". "To know" is
quite different from "to believe". Hence, you did not answer my question.
Here's what just happened, couched in metaphor:
Mark: How many APPLES do you have there?
Doc: Look at all the ORANGES I just purchased!
Would you care to answer MY question now? Or are we done?
JM
Terrell D Lewis
"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> Rev 12:10
> "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our
> God,
> and the authority of his Christ.
> For the accuser of our brothers,
> who accuses them before our God day and night,
> has been hurled down.
>
Are we talking about Bible John again?
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Libertarius
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan wrote:
> "DOC WATSON" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
> news:l46dk1h21usu428hb...@4ax.com...
> : On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:37:14 -0600, Libertarius
> : <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> said the following funny stuff in
> : this here little old new 'froup:
> :
> : >
> : >===>It is a FABLE.
> :
> :
> : YOU may call it a 'fable' if you prefer to. Christians, however, DO
> : NOT.
===>Most Christians are deceived.
However, many recognize them as fables.
See e.g. the recent declaration by leaders of the
very Church that gave us the "Bible".
"The Times
October 05, 2005
"Catholic Church no longer
swears by truth of the Bible" Article by
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
> You can't both be right about it. Is it a fable, or not? And how do you
> know?
===>The above cited article says:
"As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the
bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing
them with early creation legends from other cultures,
especially from the ancient East."
Indeed, having studied Cultural Anthropology,
I have come across hundreds of such fables.
But you don't need to be an Anthropologist. They are easy
to recognize by people who read books beyond the ones Church
authorities compiled in the "Bible".
See e.g. Barbara C. Sproul's
PRIMAL MYTHS: Creation Myths Around the World.
It contains over a hundred such fables from Africa, the Near East,
Europe, India, China, and Japan; Siberian, Eskimo,
North, Centar and South American myths; and ones from
Australia and the Pacific. -- L.
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4346D3DD.F758FB3@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
:
:
Yes, thanks. I read that article a couple of days ago. Very interesting.
JM
Libertarius
"john w
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:47:34 -0400, DOC WATSON <docwatson@yup> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
> >On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:37:14 -0600, Libertarius
> ><Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> said the following funny stuff in
> >this here little old new 'froup:
> >
> >>
> >>===>It is a FABLE.
> >
> >
> >YOU may call it a 'fable' if you prefer to. Christians, however, DO
> >NOT.
>
> "Brilliant argument, Elaine! I am quite certain that Lobo was totally
> swayed and convinced!"
>
> NOT
===>I know that from the time of my childhood, when I, also, did not
think it was a fable.
But I have grown up and put childish things behind me. ;-) -- L.
Bible Bob
Doc,
I am aware of Revelation 12. In fact I just used it in a chapter in
my figures of speech book this morning where I explain how several
figures are used in that section. Here's the link.
http://www.biblebob.net/Figures/Chapter%203.htm
I was asking PD for a chapter and verse because he said it occured in
the first century when the casting down occured between Genesis 1:1
and 1:2.
Libertarius
===>You are welcome.
It looks more and more like the "Old Church" is growing up and moving forward,
while the offshoots ("fundamentalists") are lingering in infantilism and moving
backward.
See also e.g. MSNBC: "Controversial cardinal pays tribute to Darwin
He says flap over views on evolution arose from misunderstanding."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9589656/
From REUTERS
Updated: 2:19 p.m. ET Oct. 4, 2005
PARIS - A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion
of intelligent design against Darwin▓s explanation of life has described
the theory of evolution as ⌠one of the very great works of intellectual
history.■ -- L.
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:47:33 -0400, DOC WATSON <docwatson@yup> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>Yes, he comes back daily to accuse the saints before the Throne.
>
>Rev 12:10
>
>Rev 12:10 "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom
>of our God, and the authority of his Christ.
>
> For the accuser of our brothers,
> who accuses them before our God day and night,
> has been hurled down.
jw,
The word "heaven" is not in the verse. God is omnipresent so that
Satan can make his accusations in front of God while on the earth.
>
>
>God bless!
>
>john w
>
>>
>>
>>Satan USED TO ----
>> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
>>themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
>>Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
>>answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and
>>from walking up and down in it.
>>
>>
>>but not any longer.
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:47:36 -0400, DOC WATSON <docwatson@yup> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:06:38 GMT, Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>
>>said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>>
>>LEGION lolly-gagged about and made the following ridiculous comment:
>>>> Perhaps you'd be wiser to worry about YOUR behind than be bothering
>>>> with worrying about what Satan is doing in heaven, and why he gets
>>>> into so many debates with Christ and the Father.
>>
>>>
>>>That's it jw, when someone bristles you with the illogic of your
>>>beliefs, you can at least take comfort in the conviction that they'll
>>>burn in hell.
>>
>>The thing is, Grinder- Satan was cast out from God's presence.So were
>>those angels who followed him.
>>He has no access to Heaven any longer,
>
>
>(for the person who doesn't just want the reference posted, but who
>insists on the TEXT being posted as well. She is evidently unable to
>look it up)
>
>
>Rev 12:10
> "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our
>God,
> and the authority of his Christ.
> For the accuser of our brothers,
> who accuses them before our God day and night,
> has been hurled down.
>
>note: this is NOT an OT reference. This is the present/future context
>of Revelation (the End Times which John the Beloved witnessed in his
>vision of his FUTURE)
jw,
You are right, the verse is future; but the verse does not contain the
word heaven. Satan stands before (in the front of God or in the face
of God) on the earth, since Gen 1:2, now, and in Revelation.
>
>Once again proving that Elaine is not 1/10th the "Bible student" she
>claims she is.
>
>
>and he knows his days are
>>numbered. The angels who were cast out with Satan ALSO are barred from
>>Heaven, and neither they, nor Satan 'debate with God' in Heaven.
>
>Not according to Rev 12.
>
>God bless!
>
>john w
>
>
>>Try to outwit God, yes - they do try to-- but they do not and cannot
>>'debate with Him'.
Libertarius
Bible Bob wrote:
>
>
> Doc,
>
> I am aware of Revelation 12. In fact I just used it in a chapter in
> my figures of speech book this morning where I explain how several
> figures are used in that section. Here's the link.
> http://www.biblebob.net/Figures/Chapter%203.htm
>
> I was asking PD for a chapter and verse because he said it occured in
> the first century when the casting down occured between Genesis 1:1
> and 1:2.
===>That is RIDICULOUS.
There's NOTHING about any "Satan" or any "casting out"
of anyone or anything in that passage.
And you dare call yourself "Bible" Bob?
More like Bible Ignoramus.
Or Bible Falsifier?
In either case,
you are fantasizing. -- L.
Bible John
Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
> No, he doesn't. He was cast out in the first century.
Chapter and verse?
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Libertarius
Bible Bob wrote:
===>You LIE AGAIN, Crazy J!
Genesis 1:2.
"The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."
(New American Standard Bible)
There's not even a place to stand on Earth as of Genesis 1! -- L.
Andrew W
no one can figure out what the hell was supposed to have happened in the
story.
The ancient Semitic people were very poor novelists.
Thankfully there are much better novels available today .
--
Andrew W.
Beware of invisible entities that coerce you into a life of worship and
sacrifice.
Beware of any being who offers you a gift in the form of death and
suffering.
Beware of any religion that makes free-mindedness a crime.
Free-mindedness is foolishness to those whose brains are perishing.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Mike Painter
>
>> He has a HUGE horde of demons, however, and they can be virtually
>> anywhere. There are countless demons, outnumbered only by the
>> angels. The scriptures say that "1/3" of the angels of heaven left
>> heaven with Satan at the Fall.
>
> Uh huh. Like I'd take that malarkey seriously.
If you did and made the assumption that the angels had free will and at
least the IQ of a fundie you would have to question all the definitions of a
god and heaven.
Clearly this god did not have any of the qualities of a modern god. It was
something that at least "1/3" of the creatures believed could be conquered
and were willing to do without.
The very definition of heaven for most mainline religion, "Being in the
presence of god" would have to be abandoned.
No rational creature, according to the religious, would abandon this
position.
That the god created them to revolt or that they were insane both have
implications that preclude the idea of a "loving" god.
The good news is, that if there is a god and we go to heaven, we will have
the option and possibly the desire to visit those who claim a love of god
and worship his bible.
Mike Painter
> "john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:55:01 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>> can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the
>> author.
PS I am using this "elsewhere" without written consent of the author.
So is Robibnikoff and everone who reads it.
Robibnikoff
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yTE1f.1411$B14...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Oh no! I wonder what sort of imaginary lawsuit weatherly will threaten for
this ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Eeyore
<johnw...@yahoo.comPDA> wrote:
> This one passage below puzzles me, because I have heard from some that Satan
> no longer can access heaven since the death of Christ, and I have heard that
> he can. I do not have my old testament books on me at this time, and my
single
> bible volume commentaries seem silent on the subject.
>
> What do you say?
>
He uses the back door next to the ladies toilets
++++++++++++++
Mike Painter
It's really hard to tell them apart if you don't pay a lot of attention.
Doc: The absent-minded-professor!
fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
Why are you being so testy?
hI do KNOW He exists, but although I cannot prove He does to your
satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm lying.
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Doc: The absent-minded-professor!" <D...@Watson.yup> wrote in message
news:6ndek1trqhokq37ie...@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:08:41 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
Another anxious person....reading something that wasn't written.
: hI do KNOW He exists, but although I cannot prove He does to your
: satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm lying.
I never suggested that you may be lying (there's that anxiety again).
I simply asked if you intend to answer my question, or not.
Here it is again, for your convenience: How do you know the story of Job is
not fable?
Stephen Korsman
"john w @yow.how>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:heafk19e8j0a33de4...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:56:30 GMT, Bible Bob
> <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> author.
> have studied.
Since the age of 5.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Doc: The absent-minded-professor!
it seems that no matter HOW i reply, you won't accept it. so why
should I bother further?
I nonetheless believe the story of Job to be real, as it IS in the
Bible. I really don't think any further explanation is warranted.
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Doc: The absent-minded-professor!" <D...@Watson.yup> wrote in message
: On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:45:18 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
So, to sum up:
1) You're convinced, before the fact, that I will reject any explanation you
may offer. Therefore, you're not going to offer an explanation.
2) Never the less, your reason for thinking that the story of Job is
historically factual is because it appears in the bible.
3) That's as far as you intend to go.
But surely you realize that this only opens up more questions. For example:
how do you know that the bible is historically factual?
JM
Agent 007
"john w @yow.how>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:heafk19e8j0a33de4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:56:30 GMT, Bible Bob
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> author.
> have studied.
Genesis 3
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of
Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life.
Revelation 12
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the
dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8And prevailed not; ****neither was their place found any more in
heaven.****
9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil,
and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
10And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and
strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the
accuser of our brethren is cast down, which ****accused**** them before our
God day and night. (accused, past tense)
Jeremiah 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo,
they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
Ezekial 28
13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the
jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the
workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day
that thou wast created.
14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
thou ***wast*** upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down
in the midst of the stones of fire. (wast, being past tense)
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till
iniquity was found in thee.
16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee
with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane
out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from
the midst of the stones of fire.
17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted
thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I
will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities,
by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from
the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon
the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee:
thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:56:30 GMT, Bible Bob
><biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>can be used anywhere else without expressed written permission of the
>author.
>Believe whatever you like. I will believe the scholars under whom I
>have studied.
>
>:-)
>
>
>john w
>
jw,
OKay,
BB
>
>>>
>>>
>>>God bless!
>>>
>>>john w
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Satan USED TO ----
>>>> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
>>>>themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
>>>>Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
>>>>answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and
>>>>from walking up and down in it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>but not any longer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>>http://www.biblebob.net
>>
>>
>>BB
Doc: The absent-minded-professor!
fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
>: it seems that no matter HOW i reply, you won't accept it. so why
>: should I bother further?
>: I nonetheless believe the story of Job to be real, as it IS in the
>: Bible. I really don't think any further explanation is warranted.
>
>So, to sum up:
>
>1) You're convinced, before the fact, that I will reject any explanation you
>may offer. Therefore, you're not going to offer an explanation.
>
There is no need to.
I already gave an account of my faith. The Lord IS REAL.
I don't question His existence. Why would I?
>2) Never the less, your reason for thinking that the story of Job is
>historically factual is because it appears in the bible.
>
The Bible IS God's Word. Do you not believe it is?
>3) That's as far as you intend to go.
>
I never said anything of the sort.
>But surely you realize that this only opens up more questions. For example:
>how do you know that the bible is historically factual?
>
>JM
>
I don't need to.
My faith in God is strong enough that despite my knowing how some
versions have altered the REAL Bible, there is still enough there that
I can read and learn from.
Do you not think the Holy Spirit has anything to do with ensuring a
reader can understand the Bible?
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Doc: The absent-minded-professor!" <D...@Watson.yup> wrote in message
: On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:13:33 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
: fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
: these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
:
:
: >: it seems that no matter HOW i reply, you won't accept it. so why
: >: should I bother further?
: >: I nonetheless believe the story of Job to be real, as it IS in the
: >: Bible. I really don't think any further explanation is warranted.
: >
: >So, to sum up:
: >
: >1) You're convinced, before the fact, that I will reject any explanation
you
: >may offer. Therefore, you're not going to offer an explanation.
: >
: There is no need to.
: I already gave an account of my faith. The Lord IS REAL.
: I don't question His existence. Why would I?
I don't know about you, personally. For me, it just came naturally. The
idea of an all-powerful entity who loved everybody but still allowed the
innocent to suffer without cause didn't make sense; it contradicts itself
out of existence. And I never could get an answer to "Where did God come
from?" that made any sense. It was that way with nearly all of my "God
questions". It seemed that every time I asked a question, the answer was
even more mysterious. Then, I learned some of the guidelines of logic and
science. From there, I simply dismissed the concept as meaningless.
:
: >2) Never the less, your reason for thinking that the story of Job is
: >historically factual is because it appears in the bible.
: >
: The Bible IS God's Word. Do you not believe it is?
No. It doesn't appear to be that at all to me. It appears to be a written
record of a family/nation who struggled to understand their world.
:
: >3) That's as far as you intend to go.
: >
: I never said anything of the sort.
Sorry. I thought that "I really don't think any further explanation is
warranted" meant that you were finished.
:
: >But surely you realize that this only opens up more questions. For
example:
: >how do you know that the bible is historically factual?
: >
: >JM
: >
: I don't need to.
: My faith in God is strong enough that despite my knowing how some
: versions have altered the REAL Bible, there is still enough there that
: I can read and learn from.
I agree that there is some good stuff in the bible. I'm not sure what you
mean by "REAL Bible", as there are no originals available to us.
: Do you not think the Holy Spirit has anything to do with ensuring a
: reader can understand the Bible?
When I take stock of how many divisions there are in Christianity, I'd have
to say that there is very little agreement on how the bible should be
understood. Seems to me that "the inmates are running the asylum". As far
as the "Holy Spirit" goes, I'd like very much to see empirical evidence of
its existence. Do you have some?
JM
Donna
"Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:2ff2f.34804$lI5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
give some empirical evidence(one of my experiences) as to the existence of
the Holy Spirit.
I not only believe that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God I believe in
Him. That is to say I believe everything He said and did and I believe my
inviting Him to live within and through me allows me to obey our Father
just as Jesus Christ did in all things and that my character becomes more
and more like His. It is to the ones who truly believe in Him by choosing to
obediently live according to His word and example that the Holy Spirit is
given. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, guide, help and comforter.
Some years back I was a colporteur for a time. Instead of going house to
house I prayed and asked the Lord to lead me to whatever neighborhood,
street and house He wanted me to go to. As I got out in front of the house
He led me to, I faced a gate and a very large fenced in yard. On the gate
was a large sign, BEWARE of the DOG. In the yard was a very large dog. I
immediately thought of Daniel in the lion's den and I again prayed, "Father,
you led me to this house so I know you will protect me from this dog." I
opened the gate and went inside. The dog ran up across the yard and sat down
about 5 feet to the right side of the sidewalk at the bottom of the steps
leading up to the front porch. I went up the walk and steps and across the
porch and knocked on the front door. A very surprised woman answered the
door and asked how I got there. Why I said what I did was a mystery to me,
but I said, "I walked." Afterwards I knew why I said that. I truly had no
fear because I trusted the Lord so it was no surprise that I got past the
dog. I had no doubt about it. She said that her dog had never allowed anyone
to get past the gate little lone to her door.
She invited me in and we had a very nice talk. She bought a book on the life
of Christ, I had prayer with her and I left.
When I left the dog was still sitting where it had been all along and not
once did it even make a sound or even move any part of its body. It remained
there until I was once again back in my vehicle and thanking and praising
the Lord.
Thank you Father and Lord Jesus for what you have done and continue to do
through the Holy Spirit for me.
Donna
DOC WATSON
>As far
>as the "Holy Spirit" goes, I'd like very much to see empirical evidence of
>its existence. Do you have some?
I cannot prove the existence of the Holy Spirit.
I do not doubt The Holy Spirit ... but I cannot provide 'proof' He
exists.
I simply believe He does!
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Please excuse my coming into this conversation but it is an
> opportunity to give some empirical evidence(one of my experiences) as
> to the existence of the Holy Spirit.
> Some years back I was a colporteur for a time. Instead of going house
> to house I prayed and asked the Lord to lead me to whatever
> neighborhood, street and house He wanted me to go to. As I got out in
> front of the house He led me to, I faced a gate and a very large
> fenced in yard. On the gate was a large sign, BEWARE of the DOG. In
> the yard was a very large dog. I immediately thought of Daniel in the
> lion's den and I again prayed, "Father, you led me to this house so
> I know you will protect me from this dog." I opened the gate and went
> inside. The dog ran up across the yard and sat down about 5 feet to
> the right side of the sidewalk at the bottom of the steps leading up
> to the front porch. I went up the walk and steps and across the porch
> and knocked on the front door. A very surprised woman answered the
> door and asked how I got there. Why I said what I did was a mystery
> to me, but I said, "I walked." Afterwards I knew why I said that. I
> truly had no fear because I trusted the Lord so it was no surprise
> that I got past the dog. I had no doubt about it. She said that her
> dog had never allowed anyone to get past the gate little lone to her
> door.
You present anecdotal evidence and at best it was *your* lack of fear that
may have calmed the dog.
"Beware of dog" signs are cheap and common around here even when the dog is
harmless.
I've had any number of experiences with dogs that were described as vicious
and never had a problem, even when in uniform as a cop.
Acting as an Alpha male or female is all that is necessary in most cases
unless the dog is well trained or has decided on fight rather than flight.
I notice you make no mention of the woman saying anything about getting past
the dog. Perhaps she was just surprised that you ignored a warning.
It's sad that you people can't take any credit for your positive efforts.
Bible Bob
JM,
You said:
"I'd like very much to see empirical evidence of its existence. Do
you have some?"
2 entries found for empirical.
To select an entry, click on it.
empiricalempirical formula
Main Entry: em搆ir搏搾al
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em搆ir搏c /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical
data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due
regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em搆ir搏搾al損y /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Are you sure?
Empirical evidence is based on observation or experience. The five
senses can be fooled, so whose observation and whose experience will
you trust?
Empiricle evidence relies on experience and observation alone often
without regard for system or theory which is to say that it is faith
based.
Empiricle evidence is capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment - but that is not always true because all
evidence can not be verified.
Let's say that you were home all alone last night. No one was there
to witness that you were home. The police come and arrest you and
charge you with murdering a person across town from you. At the trial
three witnesses testify that they saw you shoot and kill the victim.
You argue that you were home alone. You get a needle in your arm.
The evidence was verified by three witnesses who observed you murder
the poor man that you did not murder. The evidence was believed by
twelve rational men and women that heard the testimony.
Dozens of men witnessed the life of Jesus Christ; some witnessed his
death and resurrection. Some of those men wrote documents that
attested to his life, death, and resurrection. Today, 2000 years
later, we have their testimony. But their testimony has been
corrupted here and there and challenged and the men's integrity has
been challenged and the documents have been challenged because for
some reason there are those that do not want anyone to believe that
Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again.
You want empiricle evidence. I offer reason because empiricle
evidence is not always good eviddence. The majority of the evidence
indicates that Jesus Christ did live, die, and was resurrected. The
majority of the anti-Christ evidence suggests that Christ lived, died
and was resurrected by the fact that it tries to prove that he did not
live, die, and was resurrected.
Those who oppose Jesus speak with as much zeal as those who are on his
side. Therefore, Jesus existed and died and what's left is whether
God resurrected Jesus from the dead. It follows that if the witnesses
of his life, death, and resurrection were accurate about his life and
death; then they would be just as accurate about his resurrection
especially in view of the fact that his enemies argue against that one
fact and spend all their thought and enregies proving that He was not
resurected.
Donna, gave you her eyewitness testimony in her own way which you may
accept or reject. I will add that I have devoted man many tears to
study and observation of the scriptures and life and have concluded
that the jist and sum of the word of God is true and that Jesus lived,
died, and was resurrected. So, you have many witnesses who have given
testemony who are either right or wrong. Before you were the
defendent that was judged by a jury and found guilty. Now you are the
defendent that has the opportunity to judge. How judge ye? Did Jesus
live, die, and God raise Jesus from the dead? And if he was, is he
worthy to be confessed as your Lord.
Empiricle evidence? You look at anything that man produces and the
closer you look at it the more flaws you see. You look at anything
that came by God, whether it be animal, plant, mineral, chemical, etc.
and the coser you look the more perfection you see. Put it under a
microscope and it becomes more and more complex and perfect.
Empiricle evidence is capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment. Take a leaf from a tree and admire its
beauty and perfection. Put it under a microscope and see all the
activity and structure that makes it what it is. Who could make such
a thing?
Donna
Maybe you missed this part, so I am quoting what I said that she said:
"She said that her dog had NEVER ALLOWED ANYONE to get past the gate
little lone to her door."
If you choose not to believe that is your choice.
>
> It's sad that you people can't take any credit for your positive efforts.
I would never take credit for anything that the Lord does anymore than I
would take the credit for anything a fellow human being does.
One time I climbed up on a high cliff. Once up there I was in great fear as
I looked down and realized the great danger I was in if I should fall. I
could not move. At the point I was at I could have fallen hundreds of feet
to the bottom. My dad climbed up and carried me down. From the time he
started to come and get me until we were down I had no fear. I trusted my
dad. Was there anything that I did that I could take credit for? No! The
credit, heartfelt thanks and love and praise belonged to my dad who put his
life on the line for me.
God not only put His life on the line for me, He gave His life for me. He
also gave me His word and the Holy Spirit to show me how to live for my
safety. No amount of human reasoning can explain away the truth as I have
found it in Him. He is awesome!
Donna
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Bible Bob" <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:1cejk1d21q1rj4msq...@4ax.com...
Ummm...yeah.
Now I KNOW that you were never an atheist. No atheist, former or current,
would ever offer such tripe as you just did. Why? Because he'd already
know why it fails to convince.
Here's a very basic list of arguments theists use, and why they aren't worth
their weight in spit.
http://home.wi.rr.com/knightofbaawa/avscfaq.html#ARGUMENTS
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Donna" <Do...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j9h2f.38$NN...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
Emphasis on "TRULY believe in Him", of course. Do you read arrogance there?
I do.
:
: Some years back I was a colporteur for a time. Instead of going house to
How many times has this feat been duplicated, and under what conditions?
(Hint: none) Are there any natural (as opposed to "supernatural")
explanations available to you? (Hint: yes, many)
Come back when you understand the meaning of "empirical".
JM
:
: Thank you Father and Lord Jesus for what you have done and continue to do
:
:
:
Last of All
>
>
> Now I KNOW that you were never an atheist. No atheist, former or current,
> would ever offer such tripe as you just did. Why? Because he'd already
> know why it fails to convince.
>
Athiests have denominations now?
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3IB2f.464$Xp6...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
: message news:CzB2f.31113$tD4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
: >
: >
: > Now I KNOW that you were never an atheist. No atheist, former or
current,
: > would ever offer such tripe as you just did. Why? Because he'd already
: > know why it fails to convince.
: >
:
: Athiests have denominations now?
Cute. ;-)
JM
:
:
: --
: Terrell
: http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
:
:
:
Mike Painter
>> You present anecdotal evidence and at best it was *your* lack of
>> fear that may have calmed the dog.
>> "Beware of dog" signs are cheap and common around here even when the
>> dog is harmless.
>> I've had any number of experiences with dogs that were described as
>> vicious and never had a problem, even when in uniform as a cop.
>> Acting as an Alpha male or female is all that is necessary in most
>> cases unless the dog is well trained or has decided on fight rather
>> than flight. I notice you make no mention of the woman saying anything
>> about
>> getting past the dog. Perhaps she was just surprised that you
>> ignored a warning.
>
> Maybe you missed this part, so I am quoting what I said that she said:
>
> "She said that her dog had NEVER ALLOWED ANYONE to get past the gate
> little lone to her door."
>
> If you choose not to believe that is your choice.
I beleve you walked past a dog. I've done it after climbing fences in
uniform. The woman who owned the property said later that I was a liar and
did *not* do this because the dog was a trained watch dog.
>
>>
>> It's sad that you people can't take any credit for your positive
>> efforts.
>
> I would never take credit for anything that the Lord does anymore
> than I would take the credit for anything a fellow human being does.
>
You have no more evidence for some god doing it than you have evidence that
your idea of satan allowed you access to the woman.
<snip>
> God not only put His life on the line for me, He gave His life for
> me. He also gave me His word and the Holy Spirit to show me how to
> live for my safety. No amount of human reasoning can explain away the
> truth as I have found it in Him. He is awesome!
>
A minimal amount of human reasoning can explain away the "truth" you have
found.
As for a god "putting his life on the line" that's amusing. Do you belive
your god can die?
Donna
Most Christians know that satan can only do that which God allows and satan
knows that too. God led me to that woman so satan did not have a say in the
matter at all.
>
> <snip>
>> God not only put His life on the line for me, He gave His life for
>> me. He also gave me His word and the Holy Spirit to show me how to
>> live for my safety. No amount of human reasoning can explain away the
>> truth as I have found it in Him. He is awesome!
>>
> A minimal amount of human reasoning can explain away the "truth" you have
> found.
> As for a god "putting his life on the line" that's amusing. Do you belive
> your god can die?
I am sorry you find this amusing. Have I wasted my time? I think not. There
may still be a time in the near future that you will want to know the truth.
If not, then at least you will know that there was a time you were given an
opportunity.
Bye Bye now,
Donna
Donna
Donna
You are free to insinuate what ever you choose to but that does not mean
your saying it makes it true. It is not enough to just believe that Jesus
is the Christ and the son of God. Even the devils believe that and they
tremble. They do not have the Holy Spirit.
Answering your own questions and why not, that is the only way you can get
the answers you want. You really did not want my answers.
"I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that
he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."
Time is short. Seek the Lord while you may.
Donna
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
Ah, but this isn't about them, Donna. This is about you, since you identify
yourself among those who "truly believe". Very well, then. Let's take a
look at "His word and His example", and see how you match up. Do you hate
your mother and father? Are you happy when the enemies of your god see
their babies' heads dashed open on rocks? Do you invite street people into
your home for meals? Can you tread on snakes and scorpions, or drink deadly
poison without being hurt? Be careful how you answer, Donna. There are no
excuses or rationalizations available to you, since you have claimed to
"truly believe in Him by choosing to obediently live according to His word
and example..." The simple fact is, if you're not "walking the talk", then
you're a hypocrite and your statement is indeed based in arrogance.
:
: >
: > :
: > : Some years back I was a colporteur for a time. Instead of going house
1) Apparently, the point went past you. I guess I threw the ball too hard.
I was highlighting a couple of the rules of empiricism, as well as observing
how your story (which you claimed as empirical evidence at the outset) fell
well outside of those guidelines.
2) I wrote above: "As far as the 'Holy Spirit' goes, I'd like very much to
see empirical evidence of its existence. Do you have some?", but now you
have accused me of being disingenuous with my request. Why would you do
that? Do you know my background? Do you know my history of frustration
with/by faith? I can think of only one reason: garden-variety Christian
arrogance.
:
: "I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that
: he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."
Do you always change "scripture" around to suit your purposes? What's
Revelation 22:19 say again?
:
: Time is short. Seek the Lord while you may.
Which one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities (By the way, I
have...for years....so far, nobody's home)
JM
Bible Bob
JM,
That's two posts in a row where you have called me a liar.
The fundamentalist in you is taking over. You are acting like a
Baptist. Repent and be a reasonable and logical atheist.
This is the last time that I will affirm that I was at one point in my
life between the ages of say 16-27. Mostly while I was 16 and 17 and
it was the cool thing to be. Then I went into the military and got
maried and had more important things to think about. When I was 27 I
got saved and put away what to me was foolishness.
We were not card carrying members of the atheist church back in those
days. We were not even fundamentalist atheists. We simply did not
believe in God and ran around telling people we didn't believe in God.
My claim to my short lived fame among my atheist friends was my rant
about having "In God We Trust" on money. There were only five or six
of us in the group and none of us had enough training or
indoctrination in the the atheist priesthood to know anything about
Pascal's Wager. We were stupid kids.
Bible Bob
JM,
Your fundamentalist reasoning processes are taking control of you
again. Read all the definitions of empiricle. She did offer
empiricle evidence within the meanings of empiricle.
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:04:18 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
I don't think that at all. I think you don't know what atheism is.
:
: The fundamentalist in you is taking over. You are acting like a
: Baptist. Repent and be a reasonable and logical atheist.
LOL!
:
: This is the last time that I will affirm that I was at one point in my
: life between the ages of say 16-27. Mostly while I was 16 and 17 and
: it was the cool thing to be. Then I went into the military and got
: maried and had more important things to think about. When I was 27 I
: got saved and put away what to me was foolishness.
Because it was cool???
My dear Bob -- in my experience, it's not about cool....it's a hard-fought,
reasoned position (if you come from a background of fundamentalist
Christianity, as I do).
What you outlined above isn't how atheism is woven into the fabric of your
faith journey. It's about your need for peer affiliation as a teenager.
You weren't an atheist; you were a kid who needed friends. Nothing wrong
with that. It's the way things work in adolescence. But I promise
you....you were never an atheist. I'll bet that later in life (at 27) you
responded more to that same affiliation need than to the obvious
superstition of "the gospel". It didn't happen in isolation....never does.
:
: We were not card carrying members of the atheist church back in those
: days. We were not even fundamentalist atheists. We simply did not
: believe in God and ran around telling people we didn't believe in God.
: My claim to my short lived fame among my atheist friends was my rant
: about having "In God We Trust" on money. There were only five or six
: of us in the group and none of us had enough training or
: indoctrination in the the atheist priesthood to know anything about
: Pascal's Wager. We were stupid kids.
Now's your chance to be a smart grown-up. Check out why people like me
subscribe to the atheist perspective. If you're as intelligent as you
appear to be, I think you'll find some compelling stuff in what you read.
www.infidels.org is a good place to start.
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:12:19 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
I read 'em. You're wrong. And it's "empirical".
JM
Bible Bob
wrote:
>
>"Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
>message news:CzB2f.31113$tD4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>> Now I KNOW that you were never an atheist. No atheist, former or current,
>> would ever offer such tripe as you just did. Why? Because he'd already
>> know why it fails to convince.
>>
>
>Athiests have denominations now?
Terrell,
JM is showing his fundamentalist belief system and in doing so makes
it clear that atheism has become a bona fide religion with its own set
of dogma that adherents must know and believe. JM is beginning to
remind me of one of those fire and brimstone Baptist preachers.
Next he will be telling me that I am not a True Atheist (said to the
tune of "You are not a True Christian because you do not believe what
I tell you to beleive"). Ooops! He already did that. Had me
thinking BJ was after me for a second.
It's Okay, JM, you are still one of my favorite atheists. I still
like ya as a person and not just because God told me to. And though
as a general rule I do not drink; I would drink one or two beers with
you anytime. Heck, next time we have men's football fellowship night
at my house you are invited; but there is a two beer limit on the
premises. Man. I just realized that we haven't done that since I was
in the Army. Wonder if any of he guys around here would be into it.
Last of All
Sounds to me like you are like Bible John telling non-fundamentalist
atheists they aren't really atheists.
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:YdH2f.1211$4_....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
Sounds to me like you stumbled upon a tactic about which you were previously
unaware.
It's called "ad hominem"....theists turn to it when they don't want to face
the illogic and vacuousness of their superstitions.
But...hope springs eternal. Maybe one day a Christian will do a bit of
thinking for him/herself.
I did.
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:13:19 GMT, "Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com>
You're resorting to an ad hom? I'm disappointed in you, Bob. You're
smarter than that.
JM
Bible Bob
Donna,
Satan can do anything he wants to do within the laws established by
God back in Genesis commensurate with the believer's willingness
(inclduing via sin) to allow Satan to reign. Satan is the god of this
world and can do all that the natural laws established allow him to
do. I only say this, because the Sovereignty of God doctrine has
become poluted to the point where God get's blamed for everything;
when in truth men reap what they sow and what they sow is what gives
Satan permission to act.
New Orleans got what it got NOT because God willed it to be; but
because the people of New Orleans opened the doors that allowed Satan
to work within the natural laws. What they sewed is what they reaped.
What happened in New Orleans had nothing to do with the Sovereignty of
God. Nor did the earthquake in Pakistan, and all of the other
"natural" events that are taking place in the world that is ruled by
the god of this world.
Spiritual things can not be analized; but they can be known. So no
one other than you can say with 100% accuracy what did or did not
happen in the above case. I can reason out several spiritual
explanations that would be in harmony with the word of God; but that
would be analyzing. That leaves me with only one option if God makes
it available to me via revelation; to know. He didn't so I don't. My
alternative is to believe or not believe what you said. Based on what
I read, I chose to believe based on the evidence you presented. By
the way, just for your information, it was the word "colporteur" that
convinced me.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>> God not only put His life on the line for me, He gave His life for
>>> me. He also gave me His word and the Holy Spirit to show me how to
>>> live for my safety. No amount of human reasoning can explain away the
>>> truth as I have found it in Him. He is awesome!
>>>
>> A minimal amount of human reasoning can explain away the "truth" you have
>> found.
>> As for a god "putting his life on the line" that's amusing. Do you belive
>> your god can die?
>
>I am sorry you find this amusing. Have I wasted my time? I think not. There
>may still be a time in the near future that you will want to know the truth.
>If not, then at least you will know that there was a time you were given an
>opportunity.
>
>Bye Bye now,
>
>Donna
>
>Donna
>
Last of All
Actually, I employed a simile, your saying that the former athiest who did
not reach the same conclusions for the same reasons you did is not a "true"
(sic) athiest, is similiar to Bible John's saying that Christians who don't
agree with his doctrine aren't "true" Christians, your attack of that simile
is an ad hominem in itself. Your statement "Maybe one day a Christian will
do a bit of thinking for him/herself." is specifically an ad hominem
circumstantial and your entire argument employs an association fallacy.
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Bible Bob
JM,
Is that all you got? You use wrongly divided doctines which are
atheist interpretations that are void of Godly authority. The mere
fact that you cite what you cited proves that your knowledge of the
scriptures is minimal and biased. Since it is biased what you say is
not relevant.
For example, our identification is with Christ. That means that when
he died we died with him, when he was resurrected we were resurrected,
etc. etc. Our identification with Christ should influence our
behavior as a positive motivator. But what you fail to understand is
that the church is to behave like the resurrected Christ; not the
pre-resurrection Christ. To walk in the manner of the resurrected
Christ requires knowledge and trainng which can take lifetime to gain.
In other words, you are in no position to know how Christ or a child
of God is supposed to behave. Thus your biased unlearned mind traps
are meaningless and powerless to anyone who knows the word of truth.
It may be that you can trick some believers with your tactics; but
that only speaks bad of you - not them. You are the "tricker" and
they are the "tricked"; the victims.
But empiricism is a fluke and subject to flaws and not based on truth.
So, empiricle evidence is meaningless when it comes to spiritual
matters. Besides, you conveniently use whatever definition of
empiricle that suits your fancy. There are no rules of empiricism in
matters such as this.
>
>2) I wrote above: "As far as the 'Holy Spirit' goes, I'd like very much to
>see empirical evidence of its existence. Do you have some?", but now you
>have accused me of being disingenuous with my request. Why would you do
>that? Do you know my background? Do you know my history of frustration
>with/by faith? I can think of only one reason: garden-variety Christian
>arrogance.
I don't "know" you JM but I do like you as a person. I do see a
pattern in your posts. You use the gingerbread house method. So, who
is being arrogant JM?
Your religion which you have proved to be the fundamentalist sect of
the atheist church (by your posts today) worships the holy dogma of
"impiricle rules" and other such nonsense.
>
>:
>: "I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that
>: he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."
>
>Do you always change "scripture" around to suit your purposes? What's
>Revelation 22:19 say again?
It says:
Revelation 22:19 KJV
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this
book.
And the words "written in this book" mean the book of Revelation; not
the entire canonized book we call the Bible. The word "book" is from
the Greek biblion which means scroll.
>
>:
>: Time is short. Seek the Lord while you may.
>
>Which one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities (By the way, I
>have...for years....so far, nobody's home)
>
>JM
>
James
Employing an ad hominem after pointing out an ad hominem, while rather
hypocritical, does not leave the original fallacy valid. The concept of
an "association fallacy," while interesting in the sense that you just
made up the term, is utterly absurd. You made a mistake and got called
on it: learn to cope.
For the record, a *real* association fallacy occurs when an argument
asserts that qualities of one item implies qualities of another, by
association. It deals largely with guilt or honor by association.
"Communism is atheist, therefore atheism is evil," "Jill is an excellent
cardiologist and really likes Sally, therefore Sally is an excellent
cardiologist," etc.
And it's "you're." Jeez.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
Bible Bob
fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote:
Yep, well my dad taught me atheism and my dad did know some Bible.
His theology was a little screwed up because he had me believing that
"Jesus Christ was the greatest conn man that ever lived" and other
such wrong doctrines like the ones the atheists use on the newsgroups
to this day. Yep, because it was cool just like is being cool to a
lot of the atheists that post on the newsgroups and like it is being
cool in the atheist movements in this country and around the world.
>
>My dear Bob -- in my experience, it's not about cool....it's a hard-fought,
>reasoned position (if you come from a background of fundamentalist
>Christianity, as I do).
I would agree that it might be hard fought if you came from a
fundamentalist background because I know their doctrines and how they
control people. But I was never a fundamentalist. I did start out in
a Baptist church; but I had a good pastor who taught me to think and
use the word as my source of truth and not the church doctrine. It
was he, a trinitarian and a baptist who helped me learn the truth
about the trinity and hell - something he was obligated to teach to
earn his paycheck. A wonderful man who loved God; but had a family to
feed and care for.
I learned my Bible the hard way; by reading it and doing it to see
whether it worked. I was fortunate to and have still been fortunate
to find believers that fellowship in homes rather than in churches.
Home fellowships get rid of the need for paychecks and its pretty hard
to put on an act with people you see just about every day.
>
>What you outlined above isn't how atheism is woven into the fabric of your
>faith journey. It's about your need for peer affiliation as a teenager.
>You weren't an atheist; you were a kid who needed friends. Nothing wrong
>with that. It's the way things work in adolescence. But I promise
>you....you were never an atheist. I'll bet that later in life (at 27) you
>responded more to that same affiliation need than to the obvious
>superstition of "the gospel". It didn't happen in isolation....never does.
What faith journey? I'm not on one and never have been. I just live
my life, love God and love God's people. As a teenager my dad's
instruction had the most effect because Dad linked the church with his
divorce from my mother who became religious. She left us to become a
nun when I was nine leaving my Dad and I to care for my five younger
brothers and sisters. Then she dumped Catholicism for alcoholism,
came back, stayed for a few months and then loaded us kids on a train
to another state. When I was 14 I went back to my Dad. Teenagers?
Yea, I hung out with atheist teenagers but I was probably the most
outspoken and was more of the leader than one of the followers.
An atheist is one who believes that there is no deity which is why
there are no real atheists. Those who say they are have simply made
self or cause their diety. There are fundamentalist atheists like
you, and conservative atheists, and liberal atheists, and a lot of
wannabe atheists that all belong to the same religion and church that
opperates under the holy dogmas of atheisms
>
>:
>: We were not card carrying members of the atheist church back in those
>: days. We were not even fundamentalist atheists. We simply did not
>: believe in God and ran around telling people we didn't believe in God.
>: My claim to my short lived fame among my atheist friends was my rant
>: about having "In God We Trust" on money. There were only five or six
>: of us in the group and none of us had enough training or
>: indoctrination in the the atheist priesthood to know anything about
>: Pascal's Wager. We were stupid kids.
>
>Now's your chance to be a smart grown-up. Check out why people like me
>subscribe to the atheist perspective. If you're as intelligent as you
>appear to be, I think you'll find some compelling stuff in what you read.
>www.infidels.org is a good place to start.
JM, give me some credit. I've read all the nonsense and propaganda;
or, at least enough of it to know what it is all about. You look at
things from a religious perspective which you call impericile
evidence. I have thirty years of disciplined Biblical research under
my belt and have done what the Bible says. In other words, I read and
the did and read and did and on and on it went. To me atheism is
foolishness in much the same way that religion is foolishness to you.
Here's the difference. I read and did and it worked. You read and
reasoned and came up with a belief system. You believe the doctrines
of your religion because you read something and someone or a bunch of
someones told you that it was right and that the conclusions drawn
were right. That's the way fundamentalism works. You operate under a
faith based system. I operate under a truth based system.
I detest religion because it makes slaves of God's children. We, the
church, are supposed to be children of God and experience a Father
child relationship with God called godliness. Religion teaches the
opposite a watered down version of atheism where a deity is worshipped
via rituals rather than by love. I hang with God because I love Him
and know that He loves me. And I am not on some kind of fairy tale
religious experience where God walks and talks with me 24/7 and tells
me what color of poop to poop or what everybody's doing wrong or yada
yada yada religious mumbo jumbo that you hear people talk about.
I have done a lot of the things that the resurrected Jesus Christ said
I could do and what they are is between God and me and those who
happened to be present when the things took place. I don't talk about
them because Christianity is not supposed to based on experiences;
rather on truth. All too many believers are bound up in experiences
and expereinces are no proof of spiritualality because many spiritual
things can be counterfieted or misinterpreted.
What's wrong with my belief system? Today my son called me and asked
about my injury and got upset with the guy that injured me and started
talking crap about what he would do. I was able to correct Mike
because he knows that when I say that the guy is forgiven and that I
hold no grudge against him, that I really mean it. Mike has been the
recipient of my learned ability to forgive and forget and has seen it
put into play many times over the years. I was thankful that Mike was
able to see the futility of revenge through my words and example. It
was a little thing but important to me and my son.
Atheists stereotype the same way other religious people do. All the
groups want to label people so they can get the one up on them. I
don't buy into that. That's why I don't tell anybody much about what
I do which drives people like Jason, BJ, and others crazy. If they
can't see the fruit; they either don't know how or are not looking. I
accept people as people which is to say that I know they are imperfect
and leave it at that. Anybody can be my friend. Anybody can be my
enemy.
>
>JM
Bible Bob
wrote:
JM,
BJ? I was thinking jw; but I do see the resemblance.
LOL choking gagging gasping for breath.
Oh Man! I can't take much more of this.
Bible Bob
fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote:
So did I. You are wrong. Want proof? You had to resort to spelling
errors:)
>
>JM
Bible Bob
>>>: > : >: Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
>>>: > : >: Pronunciation: -i-k&l
>>>: > : >: Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
>>>: > : >: Function: adjective
>>>: > : >: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
>>><empirical
>>>: > : >: data>
>>>: > : >: 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due
>>>: > : >: regard for system and theory
>>>:> : >: 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
>>>: > : >: experiment <empirical laws>
>>>: > : >: 4 : of or relating to empiricism
>>>: > : >: - em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
James,
He did use a "Simile" in his response as evidenced by the word "like"
which the word that marks a "Simile". An association fallacy is a
type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are
inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types
are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by
association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring,
and are often based in an appeal to emotion. He did not invent
association fallacy because it has been around for a long time.
Then you contradicted yourself when you said that he made up the term
and then countered with an admission that an association fallacy does
exist even though you tried to steer him away from the truth by using
a part of the definition rather than the whole or the part that was
applicale to the post.
JM does what many atheists do, they add hominy to the grits. The
lumps are the false assertions that they profess to be true.
The first law of thought asserted the existence of absolute truth, and
stated that if a statement is true, then it is true. To state the law
symbolically, A is A. It is not “true for you” or “true for me” in
this absolute sense. We all know that there is a sense that we
perceive things differently and therefore can construct alternative
versions of reality, or “truth,” in the temporal sense. But in the
pure or absolute sense, our perceptions are not “the Truth.” They are
merely our perceptions. I may have my “truth,” you may have your
“truth,” but God knows “the Truth.” Logic, the science of correct
reasoning, depends upon the existence of “God’s truth,” or “Truth”
with a capital “T.” And your only argument is "There is no God" and a
necessary one it is because to get rid of your mortal enemy (truth)
you must geet rid of the source of truth which is God.
As an aside I should point out that it is common in our post-modern
culture to hear people argue that “there is no truth.” Understanding
this first law of thought, we see that they are actually affirming
that there is truth in the absolute sense. Their statement constructs
an argument that there is at least one truth: that there is no truth.
In essence, what they are saying is, “It is true that there is no
truth.” This kind of statement is what is called “self-refuting.” It
asserts something that it claims to deny. What could be more foolish?
That is why atheists stand no chance when it comes to logic. They are
unable to separate truth from fact and fact from fiction. What they
say or what they read by fellow fundamentalist atheists is all they
need to prove their form of logic which is no logic. They get buy as
much as they do because they are able to fool some of the people some
of the time; but not all of the people all of the time.
Last of All
And you really know Athiests are wrong when they quit discussing the points
and start pointing out logic fallacies.
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
My bad....you employed a simile in your ad hominem (potayto, potahto)
You're right about the ad hom against Christians. Apparently, it served its
purpose.
But you're incorrect about the association fallacy. That goes to
intent....and apparently I'm not communicating my intent very well.
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
: >>>: > : >: Pronunciation: -i-k&l
: >>>: > : >: Variant(s): also em搆ir搏c /-ik/
: >>>: > : >: Function: adjective
: >>>: > : >: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
: >>><empirical
: >>>: > : >: data>
: >>>: > : >: 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without
due
: >>>: > : >: regard for system and theory
: >>>:> : >: 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
: >>>: > : >: experiment <empirical laws>
: >>>: > : >: 4 : of or relating to empiricism
Blah blah blah....
How 'bout that empirical evidence I axed you fer....
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
: On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:11:46 GMT, "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest
My ankle's throbbing....I feel a rationalization storm coming on....
:
: For example, our identification is with Christ. That means that when
: he died we died with him, when he was resurrected we were resurrected,
: etc. etc. Our identification with Christ should influence our
: behavior as a positive motivator. But what you fail to understand is
: that the church is to behave like the resurrected Christ; not the
: pre-resurrection Christ. To walk in the manner of the resurrected
: Christ requires knowledge and trainng which can take lifetime to gain.
Hey! I said "no rationalizations". Called it! No takesy backsies...
:
: In other words, you are in no position to know how Christ or a child
: of God is supposed to behave. Thus your biased unlearned mind traps
: are meaningless and powerless to anyone who knows the word of truth.
: It may be that you can trick some believers with your tactics; but
: that only speaks bad of you - not them. You are the "tricker" and
: they are the "tricked"; the victims.
So...it's okay to NOT do what Jesus said to do? I'm so CONFUUUUUSED! [he
cried, twirling a lock of his hair]
: >
: >:
: >: >
: >: > :
: >: > : Some years back I was a colporteur for a time. Instead of going
Then, the discussion ends here, I guess. Otherwise, we're just talking past
each other....which would make this a colossal waste of time.
But you've made excellent points in this paragraph; points which many would
do well to understand. The main point being: you don't "know" (empirically)
that a god exists, you "believe" (by faith) that a god exists.
Regarding empiricism: it's not a method for truth-seeking, but rather
fact-finding. Empiricism allows confirmed facts to inform truth....as
opposed to "faith", which makes the facts fit pre-determined truth (which,
apparently, none of you can agree upon). One of the things I appreciate
about empiricism is how it "levels the playing field"; it establishes a
vocabulary that everybody can use so there isn't as much misunderstanding.
As one who values empiricism I am bound to say that if a deity's existence
could be empirically verified, then I would adjust my world-view to
accomodate such a fact. That's why I ask for such evidence -- not because
I'm trying to trick or trap anybody, but because I genuinely wish there was
some such evidence -- to answer one of the most important questions in human
history. I have often wondered if "true believers" would do the same should
it come to that.
Why do I wish for such evidence? Not because of some Augustinian
"God-shaped hole". (Pour yourself that beer, Bob. And find a
straw...ouch!...I keep thinking about that injury of yours.)
When my ability to believe in God left me nearly 10 years ago, I was
crushed. I felt abandoned and betrayed, and foolish for having been duped
for so long. That time got so dark that I considered resorting to suicide.
The thought of one of my daughters discovering my corpse helped me shake
that thought, and I sought help from friends, my doctor, a Christian
counselor, my "spiritual elders". I even sought God in ways I had never
done before. I got into Christian mysticism big time. Centering prayer,
Taize, meditation...not to mention persistent study, prayer, worship, good
deeds...anything to get me back in touch with God. At night, I would cry
out to God like a child frightened by the combination of darkness and his
father's absence. There was no response, no comforting hand, no still small
voice. I wondered publicly why the disciple Thomas -- so willfully
skeptical -- would have his call for evidence confirmed, but not me. Thomas
had known Jesus, walked with him, slept near him, eaten with him. He knew
the resurrection prophecy, had heard it first-hand. Between the two of
us -- Thomas and me -- who needed confimation more? And yet, none ever
came.
Before that desperate time, I was happy and contented; things made sense.
For some 5 years I struggled with the question of God's existence...the
early years in private...the latter years publicly. And all that time, I
was a pastor. That's right. I was a pastor for 15 years, when one day (so
it seems now) my mind started thinking rationally instead of "by faith". It
seeemed immature of me to assimilate facts into my limited world-view, when
that only raised more questions than it answered and left me with little
more than rationalizations. I chose instead to accommodate the facts by
adjusting my hypothesis to fit them (ie, going where the evidence leads); it
seemed, and still seems, a more authentic way of living. I look back often
with yearning, wishing that somebody or something could convince my rational
mind that what I "knew by faith" was a fact. I haven't closed my mind to
the possibility; but the more I ask the question, the fewer sensible answers
I get in return. Sometimes the level of irrationality in the answers I read
or hear gets under my skin a bit, and I allow emotion to have too much say
in my responses. But most of the time I keep a sense of humor about it all.
I still find some value in parts of the Bible. It contains a lot of
accumulated wisdom. Considering its phyisical history, how could it not?
But I no longer see empirical validity in its major premise...simple as
that.
: >
: >2) I wrote above: "As far as the 'Holy Spirit' goes, I'd like very much
to
: >see empirical evidence of its existence. Do you have some?", but now
you
: >have accused me of being disingenuous with my request. Why would you do
: >that? Do you know my background? Do you know my history of frustration
: >with/by faith? I can think of only one reason: garden-variety Christian
: >arrogance.
:
: I don't "know" you JM but I do like you as a person. I do see
: pattern in your posts. You use the gingerbread house method. So, who
: is being arrogant JM?
Gingerbread house method? Can you explain, please? Better yet, provide a
resource for me to read. I googled the terms, but found nothing.
:
: Your religion which you have proved to be the fundamentalist sect of
: the atheist church (by your posts today) worships the holy dogma of
: "impiricle rules" and other such nonsense.
: >
: >:
: >: "I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded
that
: >: he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that
day."
: >
: >Do you always change "scripture" around to suit your purposes? What's
: >Revelation 22:19 say again?
:
: It says:
:
: Revelation 22:19 KJV
: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
: prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
: out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this
: book.
:
: And the words "written in this book" mean the book of Revelation; not
: the entire canonized book we call the Bible. The word "book" is from
: the Greek biblion which means scroll.
Yeah. I know that, Bob.
JM
Donna
set forth. I come to God's word with an open mind and heart and a teachable
spirit, yearning to know Him and the truth. In order to do that I have to
put aside all preconceived ideas and things that man has taught or is even
trying to teach me, because my ultimate goal is to learn what God wants me
to know and to live accordingly. It does not matter what man may say against
me. The approval of man is nothing and vain glory. 2 Ti 2:15 "Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth."
A lot of people that have a preconceived idea that God is other than He is,
for whatever reason, may see that God is saying the things you portrayed. I
see and know God as a God of life and love. I have learned that in His Word
and example and in my personal relationship with Him. When one studies what
God really said about hating our mother and father we learn that He meant we
are to prefer Him over our parents and all others. Cindy did a very nice job
of sharing that with the NG recently. God's word explains itself and He
tells about this in Isaiah 28:10. "For precept [must be] upon precept,
precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and]
there a little:"
Another example of this which also shows that the old and new testaments are
to be studied together to find the whole truth.
Luke 4:12 "And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God." He was referring to Deut. 6:16.
So when anyone asks "Can you tread on snakes and scorpions, or drink deadly
poison without being hurt?" it would depend on why anyone would do such. If
anyone presumptuously did these things to prove that God would not allow
them to be hurt, it would be tempting God and wrong. I would not do that.
But, if I was unknowingly given a poison or had to walk across deadly
creatures to help someone I have no doubt that God would be with me. There
have been many times I have seen His hand in my safety and I am sure there
have been many other times that I was not even aware of.
All of the things that you brought up can be studied out in the same way to
find the truth of the matter. But each one are a study in themselves and
time and space does not allow at this time.
Whoa there!! I did not accuse you of being disingenuous with this request. I
answered it. But then the response I got in return was other questions to
which you also supplied your own answers. Now you respond with your reason
for doing so. If I understand you correctly you are telling me that I must
answer within some boundary or guideline you have in your own understanding.
If I do not do this then I am thought of as arrogant.
Do you know my background? Do you know my history of frustration
> with/by faith? I can think of only one reason: garden-variety Christian
> arrogance.
We neither one know the backgrounds, history or what either one of has gone
through in our lives. And yet, while you are saying that I have accused you
and supply the reason to be garden variety Christian arrogance you fail to
see that you have first pointed more fingers at yourself while trying to
point one at me. In other words maybe in being defensive to something that
is not there, you have inadvertantly placed yourself in the offensive
position as the accuser. It is a common human trait.
Let me assure you, I am not offended in any way. You are a fellow human
being and I do care for you. I wish with all my heart I could in some way be
a light that helps guide you to the greater light.
>
> :
> : "I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded
> that
> : he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that
> day."
>
> Do you always change "scripture" around to suit your purposes? What's
> Revelation 22:19 say again?
I know what Rev. 22:19 says and where have I changed scripture around to
suit myself?
>
> :
> : Time is short. Seek the Lord while you may.
>
> Which one?
There is only one God who created the heavens and the earth and all that is
in them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities (By the way, I
> have...for years....so far, nobody's home)
>
> JM
God is always with us. He also knows our hearts and minds. If we open His
Word and seek Him with all our hearts and minds and soul(the whole of us) we
would find Him.
Donna
>
>
Last of All
It is an association fallacy. From Wikipedia: An association fallacy is a
type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently
qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes
referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association."
Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based
in an appeal to emotion.
You appealed to an association fallacy when you said: Maybe one day a
Christian will do a bit of thinking for him/herself. and also when you said:
theists turn to it when they don't want to face the illogic and vacuousness
of their superstitions.
My simile was/is valid - your claiming some atheists are not atheists is
similiar to many Christians who claim other Christians aren't Christians.
An association I could make that is not necessarily untrue simply because it
is a logical fallacy is: Some athiests tend to resort to pointing out logic
fallacies when they run out of constructive things to say while others
resort to making up their own definitions of words, and others simply resort
to calling their opponents, "liars." When this happens, one can assume, the
athiest has run out of argument.
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Last of All
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
hmmmm....
I should say that the association fallacy does appear to be the most common
ploy among all groups, Athiest, Thiest, Conservative, Liberal, etc. etc.
--
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
:
: "Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan" <nunyab...@nospam.com> wrote in
Actually, it was a generalization. An unfair one at that. I apologize.
:
: My simile was/is valid - your claiming some atheists are not atheists is
: similiar to many Christians who claim other Christians aren't Christians.
If that's what I had intended to communicate, I'd agree. It's not. But
since that's apparently what *was* communicated....given.
:
: An association I could make that is not necessarily untrue simply because
it
: is a logical fallacy is: Some athiests tend to resort to pointing out
logic
: fallacies when they run out of constructive things to say while others
: resort to making up their own definitions of words, and others simply
resort
: to calling their opponents, "liars." When this happens, one can assume,
the
: athiest has run out of argument.
:
Not just atheists, dear Terrell. It's a human thing.
JM
Just Mark - John Wolf's biggest fan
"Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
:
: "Last of All" <comp...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
Yep. Common denominator is....? Humanity.
JM