Did Jesus ever sneeze?
Rowland Croucher
Been looking through my archives, and came across this post from a few
years back. Thought it might provoke some discussion :-)
In <347FCF95...@mira.net Rowland Croucher <rowl...@mira.net
writes:
RC: Another of my lecture-questions (in the same genre as the one about
'Does God love the Devil?) for your consideration...
RC: Of course, it relates to the proposition that if Jesus cured all the
diseases of people he came across, and had no illnesses himself would
you classify
a sneeze as a response to a foreign incursion into one's body, etc. etc
etc.
I can't answer whether JC ever sneezed, but I can confirm that a Sneeze
of the Holy Ghost was once kept as an artifact by Catholicism.
However it was deleted post-revolutionary France. In the age of reason,
so it seems, someone opened the bag.
RC: And, by the way, one of my young female clients who has been
seriously sexually abused asked me (with her social worker present): Did Jesus
ever get an erection? First time I've ever been asked that one!
I'm not to sure about this one either. However it is believed that JC
suffered that most common form of childhood sexual abuse, i.e.,
circumcision.
However it seems that he suffered a little more that others. At one
stage their were 14 copies of the Holy Prepuce (as it was known)
scattered over
Europe. The Son of God was obviously well endowed.
Since 1900 a person who speaks, writes, reads of the Holy Prepuce is a
"tolerated infamous person", however the Holy See reserves the right of
excommunication if you get to loud or smutty about it.
... but of course, I'm an apostate.
Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
and peace to you too Comrade,
Lev Lafayette
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
JOHN MARK MINISTRIES - resources for pastors/leaders
(Bookroom, library, and worldwide F.W.BOREHAM Trading Post)
WEBSITE (2219 articles, 1000+ links) - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm
LIST: email: clergy-...@pastornet.net.au (Subject-line: Subscribe)
Hugh Young
<rowl...@mira.net> hemi raet:
> it is believed that JC
>suffered that most common form of childhood sexual abuse, i.e.,
>circumcision.
And I'd like confirmation, but I've heard that the reason we mark the
New Year on January 1 is that it is the supposed anniversary of that
supposed event. (Even if you believe Jesus lived, "The Templar
Revelation" raises serious doubts that he was Jewish.)
>However it seems that he suffered a little more that others. At one
>stage their were 14 copies of the Holy Prepuce (as it was known)
>scattered over
>Europe. The Son of God was obviously well endowed.
They were NOT "copies". They were all the one and only! (Ask a
trinitarian how....)
>Since 1900 a person who speaks, writes, reads of the Holy Prepuce is a
>"tolerated infamous person", however the Holy See reserves the right of
>excommunication if you get to loud or smutty about it.
Really? I understood that about seven of Them could be seen in
churches accross Europe, mainly in Spain. Can you give me a reference
for that?
In the past, It (or the idea of It) was an object of devotion because
It demonstrated his full humanity from the very outset, forshadowing
his later wounds.
>... but of course, I'm an apostate.
>
>Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
Shalom aleichem.
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
Intactivism at http://www.circumstitions.com
Robert Howard
Rowland Croucher <rowl...@mira.net> wrote in article
<3717968B...@mira.net>...
>
> RC: And, by the way, one of my young female clients who has been
> seriously sexually abused asked me (with her social worker present): Did
Jesus
> ever get an erection? First time I've ever been asked that one!
Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had the
same problems as anyone else.
I often think if a modern television camera crew could go back in time and
film what really happened Christianity would disappear very quickly.
Bob Howard.
St.Athanasius
Amen. May the peace of Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Robert, one quick comment...
Robert said:
>I often think if a modern television camera crew could go back in time and
>film what really happened Christianity would disappear very quickly.
OR:
Millions more people would cry and repent over their sins after
viewing the 'real' movie of The life of Jesus.....
Yet faith is the evidence of things _not seen_....
Peace to you.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Julian Visch
> I often think if a modern television camera crew could go back in time and
> film what really happened Christianity would disappear very quickly.
Christianity would decline, but lots would just refuse to believe the
evidence. After all with all the evidence available now, they seem
perfectly able to ignore that evidence.
--
__^__ < Julian Visch > __^__
( ___ )-------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
| / | | \ |
| / | Put that tiger back in it's stripes we don't | \ |
| / | want any scandals on ladies night | \ |
|___| |___|
(_____)---------Internet:j.v...@math.canterbury.ac.nz--------(_____)
Robert Howard
St.Athanasius <athmi...@quicknet.com.au> wrote in article
> Yet faith is the evidence of things _not seen_....
To my mind faith is believing things for which there is no evidence to
support that belief. Can you tell me what evidence there is for Christian
belief given that the Resurrection is a physically impossible event and
that the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a superstitious
age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were much
more likely to believe things uncritically.
Bob Howard.
Able
wrote:
>
>
>St.Athanasius <athmi...@quicknet.com.au> wrote in article
>> Yet faith is the evidence of things _not seen_....
>
>To my mind faith is believing things for which there is no evidence to
>support that belief. Can you tell me what evidence there is for Christian
>belief given that the Resurrection is a physically impossible event
Is it?
By what standards do you judge it?
>and
>that the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a superstitious
>age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were much
>more likely to believe things uncritically.
Josephus, a critical Jewish apologist and Historian,
wrote about Jesus and his resurrection at the end of the first
century. He was far from an uneducated man. Check antiquities18.3.3.,
his writings are on the web.
Able
>Bob Howard.
>
Able
<quen...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Josephus comments are not accepted
>as genuine by all, increasingly the
>Testimonium Flavianum is seen
>as spurious.
Yes convenient isn't it.
Find an Historian that supports the existence and ressurection of
Jesus..then say it is not genuine and has been interfered with by
Christians.
I would say that the Testimonium Flavianum is seen as spurious by
those who would wish it spurious.
Lots of attempts have been made to discredit this section of
Josephus..none have been successful.
It was in the text used by Eusebius in the fourth century.
It is also still included in the most recent editions of his work.
However the testimony of the word of God carrys far more weight than
that of Josephus.
But not to an atheist like Bob.
The quotation...
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought
to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and
was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over
many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon
the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him
to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He
appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the
prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels
about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has
still to this day not disappeared.
For the lastest discoveries and revelation on this.It is alos a
complete history of this controversy.
http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm
Able.
Quentin David Jones
Josephus comments are not accepted
as genuine by all, increasingly the
Testimonium Flavianum is seen
as spurious.
Here are some useful sites:
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/supp10.htm
and
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<375d09b8....@news.wantree.com.au>...
> Josephus, a critical Jewish apologist and Historian,
> wrote about Jesus and his resurrection at the end of the first
> century. He was far from an uneducated man. Check antiquities18.3.3.,
> his writings are on the web.
> Able
Quentin David Jones
Robert Howard
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<375d09b8....@news.wantree.com.au>...
> >
> >To my mind faith is believing things for which there is no evidence to
> >support that belief. Can you tell me what evidence there is for
Christian
> >belief given that the Resurrection is a physically impossible event
>
> Is it?
> By what standards do you judge it?
Scientific.
>
> >and
> >that the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a superstitious
> >age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were much
> >more likely to believe things uncritically.
>
> Josephus, a critical Jewish apologist and Historian,
> wrote about Jesus and his resurrection at the end of the first
> century. He was far from an uneducated man. Check antiquities18.3.3.,
> his writings are on the web.
I have read a certain amount about Josephus and this is what I have gleaned
- Josephus only mentioned in passing the Christians whose leader was
executed. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact details but a
zealous Christian later added words to the effect that the Christian leader
was a magic man (miraculous) and words to that effect. But that addition
has been accepted by bible scholars as a forgery. I have read such
references in quite a few books. It is in fact disappointing for historians
to have almost no independent evidence to back up christian assertions.
Josephus, some of Christ's followers and contemporaries were educated by
the standards of their time but not by 20th century standards.
Bob Howard.
Able
wrote:
>
>
>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
><375d09b8....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>> >
>> >To my mind faith is believing things for which there is no evidence to
>> >support that belief. Can you tell me what evidence there is for
>Christian
>> >belief given that the Resurrection is a physically impossible event
>>
>> Is it?
>> By what standards do you judge it?
>
>Scientific.
But that is the wrong standard to judge it by.
It is supernatural..above nature and science.
BTW Science is in its infancy..it is yet to explain what an everyday
thing like gravity is.
>> >and
>> >that the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a superstitious
>> >age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were much
>> >more likely to believe things uncritically.
>>
>> Josephus, a critical Jewish apologist and Historian,
>> wrote about Jesus and his resurrection at the end of the first
>> century. He was far from an uneducated man. Check antiquities18.3.3.,
>> his writings are on the web.
>
>I have read a certain amount about Josephus and this is what I have gleaned
>- Josephus only mentioned in passing the Christians whose leader was
>executed. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact details but a
>zealous Christian later added words to the effect that the Christian leader
>was a magic man (miraculous) and words to that effect. But that addition
>has been accepted by bible scholars as a forgery. I have read such
>references in quite a few books. It is in fact disappointing for historians
>to have almost no independent evidence to back up christian assertions.
>
>Josephus, some of Christ's followers and contemporaries were educated by
>the standards of their time but not by 20th century standards.
Bob with respect we know relatively nothing.
We are only scratching the surface.
We are dealing with 200 Billion stars out there that we know about.
Note there are less than one million days since Jesus died.
200 billion is a big number, anything is possible.
Able.
>Bob Howard.
>
Paul Wilkins
> BTW Science is in its infancy..it is yet to explain what an everyday
> thing like gravity is.
What is Gravity?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/black1.html
SQ
Physicists recognize that the whole of the physical world can be
described in terms of four basic forces. Two of these are concerned with
the innermost structure of atoms, and a third, the electromagnetic
force, dominates the interaction of atoms with each other. The fourth,
and by far the weakest of these forces, is gravity. It is therefore only
significant when enormous numbers of atoms are collected together into
objects the size of the Earth, or bigger. Gravity is the dominant force
in the lives and deaths of stars and galaxies.
Any atom, or collection of atoms, has a property called mass, which
measures how much material there is in the object. On the surface of the
Earth the gravity of the Earth pulls downwards on all masses giving the
sensation of weight. On the surface of the Moon this pull, or weight, is
only one sixth of that on the Earth, and so weight depends on where you
are, whereas mass is an intrinsic property of all objects.
In the 17th century Isaac Newton described gravity by saying that each
mass attracts every other mass in the Universe with a force which
depends on how much material is present and how far away it is. In 1915
Albert Einstein dramatically changed our idea of what gravity is, but
Newton's description is often adequate.
So, gravity is a universal attractive force which causes objects to
`fall' in the broadest sense, and tries to pull objects like stars and
galaxies together. It is bound to succeed unless it is opposed by some
other force.
EQ
Paul Wilkins
Able
<pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Able wrote:
>> BTW Science is in its infancy..it is yet to explain what an everyday
>> thing like gravity is.
>
>
>What is Gravity?
>http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/black1.html
Paul my dear young friend..
We all know the laws of gravity, we experience them everyday.
Nodody can explain where this force comes from.
We can describe it and write laws concerning its predictability, but
we do not know what it is, or why it should exist.
Able
Paul Wilkins
> Paul my dear young friend..
> We all know the laws of gravity, we experience them everyday.
> Nodody can explain where this force comes from.
> We can describe it and write laws concerning its predictability, but
> we do not know what it is, or why it should exist.
It exists because our universe exists, but more importantly, we know it
exists because we (and anybody) can (and indeed does) experience it and
recognise it for what it is.
Paul Wilkins
Able
<pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Able wrote:
>> Paul my dear young friend..
>> We all know the laws of gravity, we experience them everyday.
>> Nodody can explain where this force comes from.
>> We can describe it and write laws concerning its predictability, but
>> we do not know what it is, or why it should exist.
>
>It exists because our universe exists,
Does that answer why it exists?
What it is and what put it there.?
> but more importantly, we know it
>exists because we (and anybody) can (and indeed does) experience it and
>recognise it for what it is.
But I can say exactly the same thing about my invisible friend.
Just admit that you cannot explain where gravity comes from.
Why does one body attract another.?
You cannot explain the force adequately.
Yet you accept its existence and its rules without hesitation or
question.
Able
>Paul Wilkins
Robert Howard
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<3763208d....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>
> But that is the wrong standard to judge it by.
> It is supernatural..above nature and science.
> BTW Science is in its infancy..it is yet to explain what an everyday
> thing like gravity is.
The fact we don't know exactly what gravity is does not matter. Gravity is
not supernatural. It is a natural force which acts according to certain
rules and never varies. Astronauts relied on the consistency of gravity to
go to the moon.
I have never heard in my life any proven case of any supernatural event
defying the laws of physics. There are, of course, many claims, a lot from
Christians.
>
> >> >and
> >> >that the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a
superstitious
> >> >age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were
much
> >> >more likely to believe things uncritically.
You don't accept that.
> >>
> >> Josephus, a critical Jewish apologist and Historian,
> >> wrote about Jesus and his resurrection at the end of the first
> >> century. He was far from an uneducated man. Check antiquities18.3.3.,
> >> his writings are on the web.
Josephus knew far less than the average schoolboy of today.
>
> Bob with respect we know relatively nothing.
But a darn sight more than Josephus.
> We are only scratching the surface.
> We are dealing with 200 Billion stars out there that we know about.
Josephus and his contemporaries knew only of a handful of stars they could
see put there by God to separate night from day (Genesis).
I'd love to show Josephus pictures taken by the Hubble telescope. His first
problem would be even understanding where Hubble was.
> Note there are less than one million days since Jesus died.
> 200 billion is a big number, anything is possible.
> Able.
That does not mean that what you say is true.
I have said a number of times in this NG that religion is what people want
to believe not truth. Do you believe in incarnation as do a few million
Hindus? Their beliefs are just as good as yours. The Jews are not convinced
Jesus was resurrected and don't tell me they are all dishonest.
Bob Howard.
Paul Wilkins
> Paul Wilkins wrote:
> > but more importantly, we know it
> >exists because we (and anybody) can (and indeed does) experience it and
> >recognise it for what it is.
>
> But I can say exactly the same thing about my invisible friend.
You could say the same thing, but it wouldn't be true.
Not everyone experiences what you claim about your invisible friend.
> Just admit that you cannot explain where gravity comes from.
> Why does one body attract another.?
> You cannot explain the force adequately.
.. yet.
Science is always working forward on challenges like this.
> Yet you accept its existence and its rules without hesitation or
> question.
Of course - we all feel gravity doing its work.
Not all of us feel your invisible friend doing his work.
Paul Wilkins
Able
Not all are meant to.
Able
>Paul Wilkins
Paul Wilkins
> Paul Wilkins wrote:
> >Of course - we all feel gravity doing its work.
> >Not all of us feel your invisible friend doing his work.
> Not all are meant to.
Here's what seems to apply to it.
1. Some people feel it.
2. Some people do not feel it.
3. There is no scientific way to measure it.
4. There is no way to define beforehand who will and who won't feel it.
What does this make it?
Paul Wilkins
Les Brown
aus.religion:
>Long Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:59:08 +1000, Rowland Croucher
><rowl...@mira.net> hemi raet:
>
>> it is believed that JC
>>suffered that most common form of childhood sexual abuse, i.e.,
>>circumcision.
>
>And I'd like confirmation, but I've heard that the reason we mark the
>New Year on January 1 is that it is the supposed anniversary of that
>supposed event. (Even if you believe Jesus lived, "The Templar
>Revelation" raises serious doubts that he was Jewish.)
>
>>However it seems that he suffered a little more that others. At one
>>stage their were 14 copies of the Holy Prepuce (as it was known)
>>scattered over
>>Europe. The Son of God was obviously well endowed.
>
Yeh, but what for?
>They were NOT "copies". They were all the one and only! (Ask a
>trinitarian how....)
>
>>Since 1900 a person who speaks, writes, reads of the Holy Prepuce is a
>>"tolerated infamous person", however the Holy See reserves the right of
>>excommunication if you get to loud or smutty about it.
>
>Really? I understood that about seven of Them could be seen in
>churches accross Europe, mainly in Spain. Can you give me a reference
>for that?
>
>In the past, It (or the idea of It) was an object of devotion because
>It demonstrated his full humanity from the very outset, forshadowing
>his later wounds.
>
The funny thing is, that all these foreskin relics must have actually
had something in common with Jesus - they were all Jewish.
Les Brown
Andrew Bromage
"Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz> writes:
>I often think if a modern television camera crew could go back in time and
>film what really happened Christianity would disappear very quickly.
Are you the kind of person who always believes what they see on
television?
The gospels seem to make it pretty clear that Jesus' disciples didn't
even "get it" at the time, and they were there...
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Robert Howard
Paul Wilkins <pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in article
>
> It exists because our universe exists, but more importantly, we know it
> exists because we (and anybody) can (and indeed does) experience it and
> recognise it for what it is.
Also gravity can be described mathematically. God can't. That makes God a
lot more nebulous than gravity.
Bob Howard.
Robert Howard
Andrew Bromage <bro...@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote in article
<7ffeef$ng9$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>...
>
> Are you the kind of person who always believes what they see on
> television?
Certainly not because what is shown on television is what the producer
wants you to see. The followers of Jesus wrote in the gospels what they
wanted us to believe. That does not mean they were dishonest they simply
wrote as they saw it.
Bob Howard.
Able
wrote:
>
>
Can you be described mathematically BOB?
Able
>Bob Howard.
>
Paul Wilkins
> Paul Wilkins <pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in article
> > It exists because our universe exists, but more importantly, we know it
> > exists because we (and anybody) can (and indeed does) experience it and
> > recognise it for what it is.
>
> Also gravity can be described mathematically. God can't. That makes God a
> lot more nebulous than gravity.
God = 1 ?
Paul Wilkins
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on 17 Apr 1999 07:32:38 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<01be88a4$8f0d9a40$65a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
>Rowland Croucher <rowl...@mira.net> wrote in article
><3717968B...@mira.net>...
>>
>> RC: And, by the way, one of my young female clients who has been
>> seriously sexually abused asked me (with her social worker present): Did
>Jesus
>> ever get an erection? First time I've ever been asked that one!
>
>Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had the
>same problems as anyone else.
Evidence?
>I often think if a modern television camera crew could go back in time and
>film what really happened Christianity would disappear very quickly.
What really happened then Robert? According to the Bible not the latest PC
revisionist
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Voluntary Student Membership: Equal Representation For All
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxzNqZ/ufSMMVdBMEQJT9QCgovogi+U3AtO6yrbfgKCT+SrNBTAAoLyE
04Fg1EDJe4nygJfgkvs6nIRK
=c80r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hugh Young
<pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> said:
>Robert Howard wrote:
>> Also gravity can be described mathematically. God can't. That makes God a
>> lot more nebulous than gravity.
>
>God = 1 ?
>
>Paul Wilkins
And I am 1 therefore I am God. - Shirley Maclaine
(Actually, poor Shirley gets a lot of flak for this, which is just
basic Eastern mysticism: we are all God. Makes more sense than Big
Daddy in the Sky, really.)
Robert Howard
Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
> >
> >Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had
the
> >same problems as anyone else.
> Evidence?
I don't have to give evidence. It is up to Christians to prove their leader
was in fact God engaging in Supernatural practices. I cannot prove that
Christ was not God. Proving a negative is always difficult. Christian
"proof" is based on what very enthusiastic followers of Jesus wanted to
believe. Part of the reason for exalting Jesus was to impress the pagan
world who believed in Gods and magic. I know that sounds far fetched but
Jesus as an outstanding man with a good philosophy for living would have
cut no ice with in the Greek world.
>
> What really happened then Robert? According to the Bible not the latest
PC
> revisionist
Obviusly I don't know. Do you really believe our time travelling television
crew would have come back with film of angels (whatever they are) rolling
back the stone on the tomb, dead people coming out of their graves and
walking into town according to Matthew? I doubt it. It is just a fairy
tale.
Bob Howard.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on 21 Apr 1999 08:43:49 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<01be8bd3$2a191600$32a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
>> >
>> >Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had
>the
>> >same problems as anyone else.
>
>> Evidence?
>
>I don't have to give evidence. It is up to Christians to prove their leader
>was in fact God engaging in Supernatural practices. I cannot prove that
>Christ was not God. Proving a negative is always difficult. Christian
>"proof" is based on what very enthusiastic followers of Jesus wanted to
>believe.
It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Voluntary Student Membership: Equal Representation For All
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx0GaJ/ufSMMVdBMEQLSxgCg1DgDYBn/2eNn/5yikwZcpV9ALd0AoKkg
L2AUSKB4h+ZsCCo6q8fakBHC
=dkCs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Able
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Behold, on 21 Apr 1999 08:43:49 GMT in
>nz.soc.religion:<01be8bd3$2a191600$32a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
>Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>
>>
>>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
>>> >
>>> >Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had
>>the
>>> >same problems as anyone else.
>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>>I don't have to give evidence. It is up to Christians to prove their leader
>>was in fact God engaging in Supernatural practices. I cannot prove that
>>Christ was not God. Proving a negative is always difficult. Christian
>>"proof" is based on what very enthusiastic followers of Jesus wanted to
>>believe.
>
>It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
Please explain?
Able
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:48:14 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<37379eb2...@news.wantree.com.au>, Able
(p...@wantree.com.au) didst uttereth:
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:15:46 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on 21 Apr 1999 08:43:49 GMT in
>>nz.soc.religion:<01be8bd3$2a191600$32a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
>>Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
>>>> >
>>>> >Let's get it straight Jesus was not God just an ordinary human who had
>>>the
>>>> >same problems as anyone else.
>>>
>>>> Evidence?
>>>
>>>I don't have to give evidence. It is up to Christians to prove their leader
>>>was in fact God engaging in Supernatural practices. I cannot prove that
>>>Christ was not God. Proving a negative is always difficult. Christian
>>>"proof" is based on what very enthusiastic followers of Jesus wanted to
>>>believe.
>>
>>It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
>
> Please explain?
>Able
Miracles, Visions, dreams etc.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Voluntary Student Membership: Equal Representation For All
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx0aOp/ufSMMVdBMEQKOmwCg072XR9lbUIGzvFWIl6ETVtSuwlAAoIwG
uKRCht/ucNMakHKdrmRlkgXw
=xqwI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Graeme
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
>>
>> Please explain?
>>Able
>
>Miracles, Visions, dreams etc.
>
Patrcik, people who believe in miracles, visions, dreams today as a
part of the Christian way of life are deluded. The canon of scripture
closed when John wrote Revelation in AD 70. We have ALL of the
reveltion that God has chosen to reveal to us. He expects us to use
His inerrant and all-sufficient Word as the chart and guide for our
lives, not the hocus pocus of emotional fakery. The rule is: the Holy
Spirit reveals through the Word, period. Dreams and visions were used
in the Old Testament dispensation and in the precanon period of the
New Testament church BECAUSE there was an incomplete canon. But that's
all gone. The completed canon has been with us for 1900 years. There
will be no more visions or dreams until the Millennium, as per Acts
two which refers to Joel's prophecy.
Graeme Hunt
invi...@world-net.co.nz
Homepage:http://www.worldnet.co.nz/~invictus/beacon/links.htm
ICQ 31662222
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:57:17 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<371e728c...@news.world-net.co.nz>, Graeme
(invi...@world-net.co.nz) didst uttereth:
There is a difference between adding to the canon of scripture and prophecy,
which is not necessarily documented in scripture or of the same significance.
Acts 2:17-18 specifies no arbitrary time limit. There is nothing in the Bible
which says that prophecy, dreams and visions have died out. It would be
contradicted by the two verses referred to in Acts.
There is no basis at all for assigning the verses in Acts 2 to this Millenium,
whatever it is.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Voluntary Student Membership: Equal Representation For All
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx3q0Z/ufSMMVdBMEQJ3ywCg5rwRfjmx3Ga6XmCeNKGcnHSTHLAAn212
ihVaNW7cObMSpFdNIj3pzHfe
=gXvd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Graeme
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
As a matter of fact there is, especially when the canon is closed, as
it was in AD 96. Furthermore, if you understand wyat the gift of
prophecy was in the early church there is no problem. It was a
temporary gift to take up the slack for an incomplete canon.
>Acts 2:17-18 specifies no arbitrary time limit. There is nothing in the Bible
>which says that prophecy, dreams and visions have died out. It would be
>contradicted by the two verses referred to in Acts.
>
Acts 2:17,18 is a quotation from Joel, would you not agree? Therefore,
it cannot possibly have anything to do with the church because no
prophet or anyone else in the Old Testament knew anything about the
church. It never even began until Pentecost.
>There is no basis at all for assigning the verses in Acts 2 to this Millenium,
>whatever it is.
>
Sorry Patrick, but to say that is to admit that you don't understand
the passage. BTW, don't you understand what the Millennium is?
- "whatever it is".
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:24:55 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<371ea302...@news.world-net.co.nz>, Graeme
(invi...@world-net.co.nz) didst uttereth:
Just as a point of discussion, how did you arrive at that date? I understand
it was not until years later that the canon of scripture was finalised.
>Furthermore, if you understand wyat the gift of
>prophecy was in the early church there is no problem. It was a
>temporary gift to take up the slack for an incomplete canon.
No, there is no scriptural support for this viewpoint IMO.
>>Acts 2:17-18 specifies no arbitrary time limit. There is nothing in the
Bible
>>which says that prophecy, dreams and visions have died out. It would be
>>contradicted by the two verses referred to in Acts.
>>
>Acts 2:17,18 is a quotation from Joel, would you not agree? Therefore,
>it cannot possibly have anything to do with the church because no
>prophet or anyone else in the Old Testament knew anything about the
>church. It never even began until Pentecost.
There is no presumption for this. We see instances of prophecy in Acts not by
the apostles.
>>There is no basis at all for assigning the verses in Acts 2 to this
Millenium,
>>whatever it is.
>>
>Sorry Patrick, but to say that is to admit that you don't understand
>the passage. BTW, don't you understand what the Millennium is?
>- "whatever it is".
Whatever the Millenium you are referring to is, you have not explained.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx4Pqp/ufSMMVdBMEQKQowCePQRGh7jTWK0zNfM2XPkYy0uRRsIAoMVM
I7NH1ARNLHJV3C1Bm+rKPzGP
=0AlP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Howard
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>
> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end. God cannot be
measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
be the definition of something which is not there.
Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
don't he is not there.
Bob Howard.
Robert Howard
Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
> >
> It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
Patrick, can you give me examples of such experiences other than simply
what people think or feel. You need to know I and others have asked
Christians claiming things such as miracle cures to provide evidence. To my
knowledge none ever have. Certainly none have given me direct answers to
such questions.
Bob Howard.
Graeme
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
Perhaps I should start out, Patrick didst uttereth:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:02:45 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Miracles, Visions, dreams etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Patrcik, people who believe in miracles, visions, dreams today as a
>>>>part of the Christian way of life are deluded. The canon of scripture
>>>>closed when John wrote Revelation in AD 70. We have ALL of the
>>>>reveltion that God has chosen to reveal to us. He expects us to use
>>>>His inerrant and all-sufficient Word as the chart and guide for our
>>>>lives, not the hocus pocus of emotional fakery. The rule is: the Holy
>>>>Spirit reveals through the Word, period. Dreams and visions were used
>>>>in the Old Testament dispensation and in the precanon period of the
>>>>New Testament church BECAUSE there was an incomplete canon. But that's
>>>>all gone. The completed canon has been with us for 1900 years. There
>>>>will be no more visions or dreams until the Millennium, as per Acts
>>>>two which refers to Joel's prophecy.
>>>
>>>There is a difference between adding to the canon of scripture and prophecy,
>>>which is not necessarily documented in scripture or of the same
>significance.
>>>
>>
>>As a matter of fact there is, especially when the canon is closed, as
>>it was in AD 96.
>
>Just as a point of discussion, how did you arrive at that date? I understand
>it was not until years later that the canon of scripture was finalised.
>
It is universally agreed that John died around AD 96, or at least
completed the writing of Revelation then. Revelation closed the canon.
>>Furthermore, if you understand wyat the gift of
>>prophecy was in the early church there is no problem. It was a
>>temporary gift to take up the slack for an incomplete canon.
>
>No, there is no scriptural support for this viewpoint IMO.
>
In your opinion. But what is your opinion based on, preconceived ideas
and tradition? What you should be saying is that there is no
scriptural support that you can see. That doesn't mean there is none.
It is very presumptuous of a person to say that if they are not very
sure of their subject.
>>>Acts 2:17-18 specifies no arbitrary time limit. There is nothing in the
>Bible
>>>which says that prophecy, dreams and visions have died out. It would be
>>>contradicted by the two verses referred to in Acts.
>>>
>>Acts 2:17,18 is a quotation from Joel, would you not agree? Therefore,
>>it cannot possibly have anything to do with the church because no
>>prophet or anyone else in the Old Testament knew anything about the
>>church. It never even began until Pentecost.
>
>There is no presumption for this. We see instances of prophecy in Acts not by
>the apostles.
>
Presumption? Who is talking about presumption? It is what the Bible
teaches, it is fact, not presumption. Now to start with, why don't you
tell me what these instances of prophecy are in Acts you are referring
to --- specifically. Let's cut out the generalisations here.
>>>There is no basis at all for assigning the verses in Acts 2 to this
>Millenium,
>>>whatever it is.
>>>
>>Sorry Patrick, but to say that is to admit that you don't understand
>>the passage. BTW, don't you understand what the Millennium is?
>>- "whatever it is".
>
>Whatever the Millenium you are referring to is, you have not explained.
>
It's quite simple, and I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of
scripture would have known. I refer to the Millennial reign of Jesus
Christ, a period of one thousand years following the second advent. It
is something that the early church well understood.
Able
wrote:
>
>
I am sure that Pat will and can.
Otherwise he would not have mentioned it surely?
Able
>Bob Howard.
>
Able
wrote:
>
>
>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>
>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>
>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
How many souls.?
>God cannot be
>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>be the definition of something which is not there.
God is a spirit.
>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>don't he is not there.
It is something like that.
I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
This is the only way I can accomodate it.
Able
>Bob Howard.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:53:40 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<371ec5ca...@news.world-net.co.nz>, Graeme
(invi...@world-net.co.nz) didst uttereth:
The closure of the canon was not agreed to until some years later. However
this is not strictly relevant as with a very few exceptions (certain oddball
churches), no-one has claimed that modern day prophecy is on the same level as
scripture.
>>>Furthermore, if you understand wyat the gift of
>>>prophecy was in the early church there is no problem. It was a
>>>temporary gift to take up the slack for an incomplete canon.
>>
>>No, there is no scriptural support for this viewpoint IMO.
>>
>
>In your opinion. But what is your opinion based on, preconceived ideas
>and tradition?
No, it is based on knowledge of the Bible.
>What you should be saying is that there is no
>scriptural support that you can see. That doesn't mean there is none.
>It is very presumptuous of a person to say that if they are not very
>sure of their subject.
If you have some, put it. I do not believe it exists.
>>>>Acts 2:17-18 specifies no arbitrary time limit. There is nothing in the
>>Bible
>>>>which says that prophecy, dreams and visions have died out. It would be
>>>>contradicted by the two verses referred to in Acts.
>>>>
>>>Acts 2:17,18 is a quotation from Joel, would you not agree? Therefore,
>>>it cannot possibly have anything to do with the church because no
>>>prophet or anyone else in the Old Testament knew anything about the
>>>church. It never even began until Pentecost.
>>
>>There is no presumption for this. We see instances of prophecy in Acts not
by
>>the apostles.
>>
>
>Presumption? Who is talking about presumption?
You are saying something that the Bible is not.
>It is what the Bible
>teaches, it is fact, not presumption.
The Bible teaches no such thing.
>Now to start with, why don't you
>tell me what these instances of prophecy are in Acts you are referring
>to --- specifically. Let's cut out the generalisations here.
Here are some of the references after the Gospels to prophecy:
Acts 11:27
Acts 13:1
Acts 15:32
Acts 19:6
Acts 21:9
Acts 21:10
Romans 12:6
1 Cor 11:4-7
1 Cor 12:10
1 Cor 12:28-29
1 Cor 13:2-9
1 Cor 14:1-39
Eph 4:11
1 Thess 5:20
etc.
>
>>>>There is no basis at all for assigning the verses in Acts 2 to this
>>Millenium,
>>>>whatever it is.
>>>>
>>>Sorry Patrick, but to say that is to admit that you don't understand
>>>the passage. BTW, don't you understand what the Millennium is?
>>>- "whatever it is".
>>
>>Whatever the Millenium you are referring to is, you have not explained.
>>
>
>It's quite simple, and I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of
>scripture would have known. I refer to the Millennial reign of Jesus
>Christ, a period of one thousand years following the second advent. It
>is something that the early church well understood.
This is referred to in Revelation. There is however no scriptural basis that I
can see for assigning prophecy to that particular point in time.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx4t3p/ufSMMVdBMEQJprQCgh4U5jMnzN9vnKHEIBkofDQOZ9cgAoLBJ
6U30t5JZVnI7SFlnszFGu5fm
=3Ohr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Howard
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<3756b029....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>
> How many souls.?
Mathematically - zero.
>
> God is a spirit.
What is a spirit? A spirit is an absract thing. It is the liveliness, the
animation, the personality of a person. It is not something which can be
measured and packaged. Of course from very early times people have believed
another world exists populated by gods, demons, angels etc. of a different
substance from this world. Christianity is the latest and most
sophisticated of those old superstitions.
>
> >Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a
matter
> >of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If
you
> >don't he is not there.
>
> It is something like that.
> I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
> This is the only way I can accomodate it.
That is fair enough but leads to a problem. Correct me if I am wrong but
the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is it
fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further, according
to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is going to heaven
and who goes to hell, hardly fair. I think you need another theory, Able.
Bob Howard.
Able
wrote:
>
>
Why do you think God has to be fair?
Do you believe in an omnibenevolent God?
Chapter and verse please.
Able
>Bob Howard.
>
>
Allistar Melville
>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>
>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>
>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>
>How many souls.?
None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>>God cannot be
>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>
> God is a spirit.
So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
just a superstition.
>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>don't he is not there.
>
> It is something like that.
>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
So I am not predestined to believe?
Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
those my lack of belief is fate?
>This is the only way I can accomodate it.
>Able
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
"Science built the Academy, superstition the inquisition."
[Robert G. Ingersoll]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Able
Melville) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 05:16:17 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>
>>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>
>>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>>
>>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>>
>>How many souls.?
>
>None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>
>>>God cannot be
>>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>>
>> God is a spirit.
>
>So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
>just a superstition.
>
>>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>>don't he is not there.
>>
>> It is something like that.
>>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>
>So I am not predestined to believe?
I do not know.
You will find that out in due time.
>Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
>those my lack of belief is fate?
But who said he would?
I told you I will not talk down side with you.
Not my style.
Able.
Robert Howard
Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<3757b0bd....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>
> I am sure that Pat will and can.
> Otherwise he would not have mentioned it surely?
OK, fire away, Patrick.
Bob Howard.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on 22 Apr 1999 06:26:14 GMT in
nz.soc.religion:<01be8c89$1fd4cac0$67a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
>> >
>> It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
>
>Patrick, can you give me examples of such experiences other than simply
>what people think or feel. You need to know I and others have asked
>Christians claiming things such as miracle cures to provide evidence. To my
>knowledge none ever have. Certainly none have given me direct answers to
>such questions.
Most of the great prophecies I know about have not yet been fulfilled. It
would take some more research which i will try to do when I get some time, in
the meantime I have marked your post for future reference
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNx+87p/ufSMMVdBMEQIJ8ACg1w44iCzE7zC/AejE7+QCtxvmRIQAn0yU
NtP2H/7JOqpPKZWzw4wLYfaG
=FgLY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt
Robert Howard wrote:
>To my mind faith is believing things for which there is no evidence to
>support that belief.
Really? Most Christians interpret faith to mean 'trust' or 'stong
confidence', not blind ignorance. Evidence doesn't undermine faith, it
strengthens it. Faith does not need to be blind.
>the early Christians who claim it happened lived in a superstitious
>age and were educationally ignorant compared to us now. They were much
>more likely to believe things uncritically.
I think you place too much 'faith' in modern man and not enough in the
ancients. They weren't stupid. People have never needed university degrees
to realise that virgin births weren't normal. They were just as capable of
expressing incredulity as we are. Take Jesus' friend Thomas for example. He
expressed a great deal of doubt until he saw further evidence.
Regards
Matt
Paul Wilkins
> I told you I will not talk down side with you.
> Not my style.
But if someone only talks about the good side, not saying anything about
the bad down side, isn't that somewhat off kilter?
Paul Wilkins
Hugh Young
(Patrick Dunford) saideth:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Behold, on 22 Apr 1999 06:26:14 GMT in
>nz.soc.religion:<01be8c89$1fd4cac0$67a7...@thenet.thenet.co.nz>, Robert
>Howard (rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>
>>
>>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrotest in article
>>> >
>>> It is also based on supernatural experiences by present day Christians.
>>
>>Patrick, can you give me examples of such experiences other than simply
>>what people think or feel. You need to know I and others have asked
>>Christians claiming things such as miracle cures to provide evidence. To my
>>knowledge none ever have. Certainly none have given me direct answers to
>>such questions.
>
>Most of the great prophecies I know about have not yet been fulfilled.
I love it. And when does "not yet" become "not"?
I PROPHESY: that a great wave will come and inundate Mana Island.
Fortunately the entire population will be ashore at the time. I won't
say when, so it can stay in Patrick's "not yet" basket as long as it
likes. Now, is this a "great" prophecy, and if not, why not?
> It
>would take some more research which i will try to do when I get some time, in
>the meantime I have marked your post for future reference
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
Intactivism at http://www.circumstitions.com
Privatisation means never having to say "I'm to blame"
Silly quote from The Matrix: "The body can't exist without the mind."
Able
Well you can take off your kilt if you like, I do not wear one.
Able
>Paul Wilkins
Robert Howard
Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in article
> >
> >Patrick, can you give me examples of such experiences other than simply
> >what people think or feel. You need to know I and others have asked
> >Christians claiming things such as miracle cures to provide evidence. To
my
> >knowledge none ever have. Certainly none have given me direct answers to
> >such questions.
>
> Most of the great prophecies I know about have not yet been fulfilled. It
> would take some more research which i will try to do when I get some
time, in
> the meantime I have marked your post for future reference
You disappoint me, Patrick, no direct answer again.
Bob Howard.
Able
wrote:
>
>
Yes it is not a good example of conviction is it.
I too was dissapointed..all you can do is remind him of it for the
rest of his life. Especially when he interjects into other
postings..remind him he owes you a posting on signs, wonders and
miracles in the Church of today.
If you don't I most certainly will.
Able
>Bob Howard.
Allistar Melville
>On 23 Apr 1999 04:14:10 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>><3756b029....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>
>>> How many souls.?
>>
>>Mathematically - zero.
>>>
>>> God is a spirit.
>>
>>What is a spirit? A spirit is an absract thing. It is the liveliness, the
>>animation, the personality of a person. It is not something which can be
>>measured and packaged. Of course from very early times people have believed
>>another world exists populated by gods, demons, angels etc. of a different
>>substance from this world. Christianity is the latest and most
>>sophisticated of those old superstitions.
>>
>>>
>>> >Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a
>>matter
>>> >of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If
>>you
>>> >don't he is not there.
>>>
>>> It is something like that.
>>> I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>> This is the only way I can accomodate it.
>>
>>That is fair enough but leads to a problem. Correct me if I am wrong but
>>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>>believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is it
>>fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further, according
>>to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is going to heaven
>>and who goes to hell, hardly fair. I think you need another theory, Able.
>
> Why do you think God has to be fair?
Because fair = just. Do you think your god is just?
>Do you believe in an omnibenevolent God?
>Chapter and verse please.
>
Allistar Melville
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:20:12 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>Melville) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 05:16:17 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>>>
>>>How many souls.?
>>
>>None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>>
>>>>God cannot be
>>>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>>>
>>> God is a spirit.
>>
>>So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
>>just a superstition.
>>
>>>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>>>don't he is not there.
>>>
>>> It is something like that.
>>>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>
>>So I am not predestined to believe?
>
>I do not know.
>You will find that out in due time.
And if I'm not, is that just?
>>Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
>>those my lack of belief is fate?
>
>But who said he would?
>I told you I will not talk down side with you.
Why? Afraid that you're wrong? Ashamed to be worshipping an injust
deity?
>Not my style.
>Able.
Able
Melville) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:18:59 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>
>>On 23 Apr 1999 04:14:10 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>><3756b029....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>
>>>> How many souls.?
>>>
>>>Mathematically - zero.
>>>>
>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>
>>>What is a spirit? A spirit is an absract thing. It is the liveliness, the
>>>animation, the personality of a person. It is not something which can be
>>>measured and packaged. Of course from very early times people have believed
>>>another world exists populated by gods, demons, angels etc. of a different
>>>substance from this world. Christianity is the latest and most
>>>sophisticated of those old superstitions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a
>>>matter
>>>> >of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If
>>>you
>>>> >don't he is not there.
>>>>
>>>> It is something like that.
>>>> I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>> This is the only way I can accomodate it.
>>>
>>>That is fair enough but leads to a problem. Correct me if I am wrong but
>>>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>>>believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is it
>>>fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further, according
>>>to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is going to heaven
>>>and who goes to hell, hardly fair. I think you need another theory, Able.
>>
>> Why do you think God has to be fair?
>
>Because fair = just. Do you think your god is just?
Absolutely..we now have been in a complete circle Allistar.
Able.
>>Do you believe in an omnibenevolent God?
>>Chapter and verse please.
>>
>>Able
>
Able
Melville) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:49:18 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:20:12 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>>Melville) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 05:16:17 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>>>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>>>>
>>>>How many souls.?
>>>
>>>None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>>>
>>>>>God cannot be
>>>>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>>>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>>>>
>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>
>>>So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
>>>just a superstition.
>>>
>>>>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>>>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>>>>don't he is not there.
>>>>
>>>> It is something like that.
>>>>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>
>>>So I am not predestined to believe?
>>
>>I do not know.
>>You will find that out in due time.
>
>And if I'm not, is that just?
It is just as well.
I will have had enough of you on arc without having to spend eternity
with you.
>>>Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
>>>those my lack of belief is fate?
>>
>>But who said he would?
>>I told you I will not talk down side with you.
>
>Why? Afraid that you're wrong? Ashamed to be worshipping an injust
>deity?
Not my style.
Able.
>
Allistar Melville
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 06:56:59 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>Melville) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:18:59 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Apr 1999 04:14:10 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>><3756b029....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>
>>>>> How many souls.?
>>>>
>>>>Mathematically - zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>>
>>>>What is a spirit? A spirit is an absract thing. It is the liveliness, the
>>>>animation, the personality of a person. It is not something which can be
>>>>measured and packaged. Of course from very early times people have believed
>>>>another world exists populated by gods, demons, angels etc. of a different
>>>>substance from this world. Christianity is the latest and most
>>>>sophisticated of those old superstitions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a
>>>>matter
>>>>> >of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If
>>>>you
>>>>> >don't he is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is something like that.
>>>>> I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>>> This is the only way I can accomodate it.
>>>>
>>>>That is fair enough but leads to a problem. Correct me if I am wrong but
>>>>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>>>>believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is it
>>>>fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further, according
>>>>to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is going to heaven
>>>>and who goes to hell, hardly fair. I think you need another theory, Able.
>>>
>>> Why do you think God has to be fair?
>>
>>Because fair = just. Do you think your god is just?
>
>Absolutely..we now have been in a complete circle Allistar.
So why did you ask above "Why do you think God has to be fair?"?
Anyway, you have avoided the question. Let me pose the situation for
you to answer:
Correct me if I am wrong but
the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is
it fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further,
according to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is
going to heaven and who goes to hell, hardly fair.
Do you think this is fair?
Allistar Melville
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 06:59:10 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>Melville) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:49:18 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:20:12 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>>>Melville) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 05:16:17 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>>>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>>>>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>>>>>
>>>>>How many souls.?
>>>>
>>>>None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>>>>
>>>>>>God cannot be
>>>>>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>>>>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>>
>>>>So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
>>>>just a superstition.
>>>>
>>>>>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>>>>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>>>>>don't he is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is something like that.
>>>>>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>>
>>>>So I am not predestined to believe?
>>>
>>>I do not know.
>>>You will find that out in due time.
>>
>>And if I'm not, is that just?
>
>It is just as well.
>I will have had enough of you on arc without having to spend eternity
>with you.
:-) very well, but an answer would be good.
Do you think it is just?
>>>>Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
>>>>those my lack of belief is fate?
>>>
>>>But who said he would?
>>>I told you I will not talk down side with you.
>>
>>Why? Afraid that you're wrong? Ashamed to be worshipping an injust
>>deity?
>
>Not my style.
Well that's a handy way of avoiding a debate. I'm not saying you're
being a cop-out, we'll let the other readers decide that for
themselves. :-p
Able
Melville) wrote:
It is not a cop out Allistar.
You want me to answer two simple questions? Yes?
The problem is that the answers are not simple!!
It would mean you being willing to at least show some attempt to
understand what scripture has to say.
To date, you have been shown not to be remotely interested.
Able
Able
Melville) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 10:53:31 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 06:56:59 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>>Melville) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:18:59 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 23 Apr 1999 04:14:10 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>>><3756b029....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many souls.?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mathematically - zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is a spirit? A spirit is an absract thing. It is the liveliness, the
>>>>>animation, the personality of a person. It is not something which can be
>>>>>measured and packaged. Of course from very early times people have believed
>>>>>another world exists populated by gods, demons, angels etc. of a different
>>>>>substance from this world. Christianity is the latest and most
>>>>>sophisticated of those old superstitions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a
>>>>>matter
>>>>>> >of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If
>>>>>you
>>>>>> >don't he is not there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is something like that.
>>>>>> I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>>>> This is the only way I can accomodate it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is fair enough but leads to a problem. Correct me if I am wrong but
>>>>>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>>>>>believers going to heaven. If I am not one predestined to believe is it
>>>>>fair to throw me in the firey furnace? Taking it a bit further, according
>>>>>to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is going to heaven
>>>>>and who goes to hell, hardly fair. I think you need another theory, Able.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think God has to be fair?
>>>
>>>Because fair = just. Do you think your god is just?
>>
>>Absolutely..we now have been in a complete circle Allistar.
>
>So why did you ask above "Why do you think God has to be fair?"?
To try to screw some scriptures out of you that supported your case.
We only have the word of God to go on Allistar.
>Anyway, you have avoided the question. Let me pose the situation for
>you to answer:
>
>Correct me if I am wrong but
>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>believers going to heaven.
First you must not be so slack..quote scripture please.
Which are you referring to?
>If I am not one predestined to believe is
>it fair to throw me in the firey furnace?
I think you are getting it mixed up with Daniel somewhere.
> Taking it a bit further,
>according to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is
>going to heaven and who goes to hell, hardly fair.
Again could I have your scriptures please?
>Do you think this is fair?
Give me the scriptures and I will explain.
If I can.
Paul Wilkins
>Paul Wilkins wrote:
>>But if someone only talks about the good side, not saying anything about
>>the bad down side, isn't that somewhat off kilter?
>
>Well you can take off your kilt if you like, I do not wear one.
Well I myself prefer witty dry humour.
Each to their own I suppose. :)
Paul Wilkins
Able
Yes it was a bit wet, but so was the question:-)
Able
>Paul Wilkins
>
>
Allistar Melville
Which happens to be just a book written by people, inspired by people.
>>Anyway, you have avoided the question. Let me pose the situation for
>>you to answer:
>>
>>Correct me if I am wrong but
>>the bible says people who don't believe will be punished in hell only
>>believers going to heaven.
>
>First you must not be so slack..quote scripture please.
>Which are you referring to?
Is it true or not?
Will non-believers be sent to hell when they die?
>>If I am not one predestined to believe is
>>it fair to throw me in the firey furnace?
>
>I think you are getting it mixed up with Daniel somewhere.
Daniel who?
>> Taking it a bit further,
>>according to Christians only God could predestine. He chooses who is
>>going to heaven and who goes to hell, hardly fair.
>
>Again could I have your scriptures please?
I thought you said not too long ago exactly this. I'm only repeating
what you said. If you have a problem with it then YOU hunt up the
scriptures.
>>Do you think this is fair?
>
> Give me the scriptures and I will explain.
>If I can.
>Able
Allistar.
Allistar Melville
>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:04:18 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>Melville) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 10:56:03 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 06:59:10 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>>>Melville) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:49:18 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:20:12 GMT, alli...@ihug.co.nz (Allistar
>>>>>Melville) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 05:16:17 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 22 Apr 1999 06:18:04 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Able <p...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
>>>>>>>><371ddc9f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you be described mathematically BOB?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, Able - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms etc., several trillion brain
>>>>>>>>cells and 100,000 metres of veins and arterys end to end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How many souls.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>None. (Although I have 2 soles).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>God cannot be
>>>>>>>>measured, cannot be seen and takes up no space. Scientifically that would
>>>>>>>>be the definition of something which is not there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God is a spirit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So is Jack Daniels, the kind of spirit that actually exists and isn't
>>>>>>just a superstition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Since God can't be detected physically his existence can only be a matter
>>>>>>>>of faith. In other words if you want to believe in God he is there. If you
>>>>>>>>don't he is not there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is something like that.
>>>>>>>I believe it to be more a factor of being predestined to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So I am not predestined to believe?
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not know.
>>>>>You will find that out in due time.
>>>>
>>>>And if I'm not, is that just?
>>>
>>>It is just as well.
>>>I will have had enough of you on arc without having to spend eternity
>>>with you.
>>
>>:-) very well, but an answer would be good.
>>
>>Do you think it is just?
No answer for this one?
>>>>>>Is it just then that this god would condemn me to eternal torture even
>>>>>>those my lack of belief is fate?
>>>>>
>>>>>But who said he would?
>>>>>I told you I will not talk down side with you.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Afraid that you're wrong? Ashamed to be worshipping an injust
>>>>deity?
>>>
>>>Not my style.
>>
>>Well that's a handy way of avoiding a debate. I'm not saying you're
>>being a cop-out, we'll let the other readers decide that for
>>themselves. :-p
>
>It is not a cop out Allistar.
>You want me to answer two simple questions? Yes?
All I want you to do is to explain this "down side" thing you keep
mentioning. I am genuinly interested.
>The problem is that the answers are not simple!!
>It would mean you being willing to at least show some attempt to
>understand what scripture has to say.
> To date, you have been shown not to be remotely interested.
One thing I am interested in is abolishing Christianity from our
planet.
Oops, was that a bit harsh for you?
John Leister
I think I shall anyway.
Someone on this thread asked two questions and everyone's
avoiding them so I in my infinite sarcastic wisdom shall
ask them.
1) Is it fair for God to predestine some people to go to
heaven and others to hell?
2) Is it fair that a non believer is judged simply because he
or she did not believe upon "the word of God" and hence forth
be also judged in the same way as question 1?
Graeme
wrote:
>Can I weigh into this argument?
>I think I shall anyway.
>
>Someone on this thread asked two questions and everyone's
>avoiding them so I in my infinite sarcastic wisdom shall
>ask them.
>
>1) Is it fair for God to predestine some people to go to
>heaven and others to hell?
>
He doesn't, it is a myth.
>2) Is it fair that a non believer is judged simply because he
>or she did not believe upon "the word of God" and hence forth
>be also judged in the same way as question 1?
>
"Believe upon the Word of God" is not the issue; it is "believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ" - Actrs 16:31.
Graeme Hunt
invi...@world-net.co.nz
http://www.worldnet.co.nz/~invictus/beacon/index.htm
ICQ 37569326
Allistar Melville
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 May 1999 01:12:23 +0930, John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Can I weigh into this argument?
>>I think I shall anyway.
>>
>>Someone on this thread asked two questions and everyone's
>>avoiding them so I in my infinite sarcastic wisdom shall
>>ask them.
>>
>>1) Is it fair for God to predestine some people to go to
>>heaven and others to hell?
>>
>
>He doesn't, it is a myth.
>
>>2) Is it fair that a non believer is judged simply because he
>>or she did not believe upon "the word of God" and hence forth
>>be also judged in the same way as question 1?
>>
>
>"Believe upon the Word of God" is not the issue; it is "believe on the
>Lord Jesus Christ" - Actrs 16:31.
But if we don't believe in the word of your god, what reason
(evidence) do we have to believe in this Christ guy?
>Graeme Hunt