Hey, Let's Blame God !
Stan
> Well, folks, the Most High originally
> installed
> mankind in a Paradise. It was the
> disobedience and rebellion of our
> human
> First Parents that got the rest of us
> kicked-
> out !
>
> Our living in a imperfect, sinful
> world was
> NOT the Lord's intention. ( He could
> have
> prevented it, but only at the cost of
> making
>
> The DataRat
>
Oh, this makes total sense! Yessir.
Some distant relative makes a mistake and every
descendent for all eternity has to suffer?
Think about it, Mickey.
Suppose one day back in high school another
student took your lunch money after you told him
not to. Twenty years later you have an opprtunity
to finally exact revenge by doing a dirty deed to
his daughter. (Maybe she's qualified for a job at
your company but you'll hire some else just to
show him!).
Is your god so petty? Do you not desire a god who
is above that sort of behaviour?
Probably not, my plague-carrying little rodent.
Stan
Stanton D Summay
of free will. Interesting concept, although I am not sure I would want that
kind of God. I am happy for my free will and because of yours, my life
expectancy is uncertain, because any day now you may decide to exercise your
free will and take my life. Maybe someday all of us will place the blame
where it belongs, on the person that did the wrong, not God.
Stan (also)
Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:378D399C...@earthlink.net...
Stan
>
> So Stan, then you prefer a God that has us all as mind numbed robots instead
> of free will. Interesting concept, although I am not sure I would want that
> kind of God. I am happy for my free will and because of yours, my life
> expectancy is uncertain, because any day now you may decide to exercise your
> free will and take my life. Maybe someday all of us will place the blame
> where it belongs, on the person that did the wrong, not God.
>
> Stan (also)
You are totally out to lunch! I said nothing about
free will pro or con!
Where did you get this? I said it's wrong to
punish the descendants of some wrong doer for all
eternity. read my post again. It's below.
>
> Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Oh, this makes total sense! Yessir.
Stan
>
> See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
> saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> Adam did ?"
Yes, why should I?
> Well, they might have a point if they ...unlike Adam...
> are sinless.
Most people are sinless, bro. Most people are
pretty decent human beings who occasionally make a
mistake or succumb to a minor temptation. Most
people will never come within a mile of doing
anything to warrant eternity in hell.
To believe otherwise is pathological.
>
> But, at least Adam had shame for his sin, and a
> degree of fear of God. We're worse today. We
> sin without shame or second-thought. We don't
> fear the Lord.
Newsflash from the 21st century to the gnawing
rodent:
There ain't no sin. There are crimes and even bad
acts committed by individuals.
But people ain't born sinners.
>
> We've inherited not only Adam's punishment, BUT
> ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
> that we're worse !
>
> There will be no innocent people in hell.
Like all the millions of new born babies who died
shortly after birth?
You are truly worthy of your chosen name.
Stan
>
> The DataRat
Elfish Chimera
The DataRat wrote:
>
>
>
> Recently here in the religious newsgroups,
> we've had a couple people post complaints
> about God "allowing" their 25 year old
> Good Christian friend to die in an accident,
> or three year olds getting their face ripped
> off in some horrible way.
>
> The question is always: If God is good,
> how could He let stuff like this occur.
>
> Well, folks, the Most High originally installed
> mankind in a Paradise. It was the
> disobedience and rebellion of our human
> First Parents that got the rest of us kicked-
> out !
>
> Our living in a imperfect, sinful world was
> NOT the Lord's intention. ( He could have
> prevented it, but only at the cost of making
> us mindless robots. )
Can 'god' sin?
Is 'god' a mindless robot?
If both answers are no, then ipso facto it is possible to be sinless and
still have free will.
Next questions:
Will the saved in heaven be able to sin?
Will the saved in heaven be mindless robots?
If both answers are no, then it is also possible for a contingent created
being to be sinless and have free will.
So much for the NaziRodents argument.
ciao
Elfish Chimera
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or
deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt
anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does
harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
Elfish Chimera
The DataRat wrote:
>
> See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
> saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> Adam did ?"
>
> Well, they might have a point if they ...unlike Adam...
> are sinless.
>
> But, at least Adam had shame for his sin,
No he didn't.
Such shame as appears in the fairy tale is shame regarding a totally
unrelated matter.
And of course, knowing that it's wrong to disobey a legitimate order is an
act of a mind possessing a knowledge of right and wrong, or in other words,
good and evil.
Which of course Adam, supposedly, didn't have until after the fact.
The Adam of the story may have had the vocabulary of an adult man, but
with no knowledge of right and wrong, he had the emotional quotient of a
toddler.
And wasn't the NaziRodent just making allusions about the dangers of
leaving loaded guns around children?
But to understand this requires a mind capable of logical thought, a trait
the NaziRodent has long since demonstrated he lacks.
ciao
Elfish Chimera
---
Stan
>
> The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
> > saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> > Adam did ?"
>
>
> act of a mind possessing a knowledge of right and wrong, or in other words,
> good and evil.
>
> Which of course Adam, supposedly, didn't have until after the fact.
>
> The Adam of the story may have had the vocabulary of an adult man, but
> with no knowledge of right and wrong, he had the emotional quotient of a
> toddler.
>
"There can be no God who is kindly disposed one
day and cruel the next; there can be no God who
creates us with tendencies and impulses we can
scarely comprehend, and then eternally punishes us
when we make mistakes."
Ernest Holmes
Klark Kent
Stan wrote:
> The gnawing rodent wrote:
> >
> > See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
> > saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> > Adam did ?"
>
> Yes, why should I?
You're NOT blamed.. but you did inherit a corruptible human body, which
is subject (one day) to death..
>
>
> > Well, they might have a point if they ...unlike Adam...
> > are sinless.
>
> Most people are sinless, bro. Most people are
> pretty decent human beings who occasionally make a
> mistake or succumb to a minor temptation. Most
> people will never come within a mile of doing
> anything to warrant eternity in hell.
>
Not everyone believes in an eternity in hell.. I believe in complete
destruction of both body and soul for those who reject Christ. Your
opinion about sin is certainly something which you are entitled to have.
Serious crime still exists, though.. how come? What a about the gun
toting Serb murder squads?
>
> To believe otherwise is pathological
Or, just different
>
> >
> > But, at least Adam had shame for his sin, and a
> > degree of fear of God. We're worse today. We
> > sin without shame or second-thought. We don't
> > fear the Lord.
>
> Newsflash from the 21st century to the gnawing
> rodent:
> There ain't no sin. There are crimes and even bad
> acts committed by individuals.
> But people ain't born sinners.
>
So where, then, DOES this stuff come from? This is along the lines of
the Chicken/egg dilemma.
>
> >
> > We've inherited not only Adam's punishment, BUT
> > ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
> > that we're worse !
> >
> > There will be no innocent people in hell.
>
> Like all the millions of new born babies who died
> shortly after birth?
>
Have newborn babies sinned? No... God will judge fairly, trust that he
will make the right call on this one..
Look at it this way, the condemned die TWICE.. once for what Adam did,
once for what THEY did (this happens at the judgement seat of God.)
Butch
wrote:
> Our living in a imperfect, sinful world was
> NOT the Lord's intention. ( He could have
> prevented it, but only at the cost of making
> us mindless robots. )
So, something happened contrary to God's intention? Strange teaching
for a Calvinist. God deferred making us robots until we are
Calvinists with an uppercase "C". Then we cannot rebel and fall away
from grace, right?
Butch....
Another friend is always welcome!
The DataRat
See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
Adam did ?"
Well, they might have a point if they ...unlike Adam...
are sinless.
But, at least Adam had shame for his sin, and a
degree of fear of God. We're worse today. We
sin without shame or second-thought. We don't
fear the Lord.
We've inherited not only Adam's punishment, BUT
ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
that we're worse !
There will be no innocent people in hell.
The DataRat
Jason Harris
>Most people are sinless, bro. Most people are
>pretty decent human beings who occasionally make a
>mistake or succumb to a minor temptation. Most
>people will never come within a mile of doing
>anything to warrant eternity in hell.
>
>To believe otherwise is pathological.
>
As a pathological Christinazi right wing radical I beleive.......
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your
neighbour as yourself."
If you stray one hair from this perfect command, you are damned to hell
forever.
This strong view can be used to view God two ways. You may say, "What a
mean unfair God. He needs to lighten up." Many religionists these days
have tried to soften and water down the law and God's role as judge.
However, this also softens and waters down His mercy. Thus, the Gospel is
taught like a teddy bear to help you lead a happy and successful life. But,
if you keep in mind the awesomeness and wrath of God, it makes His mercy and
grace seem so much sweeter. Only God's love can overpower the His law. The
law is a huge incomprehensible ominious beast that, we as puny humans,
cannot stand one second under, being total trash. But this all-powerful God
gave His life and became nothing to saves us from this law and judgement and
without any merit or worthiness on our part. No condemnation. That is
Grace. Big and powerful.
Stan
> As a pathological Christinazi right wing radical I beleive.......
> "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
> soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your
> neighbour as yourself."
> If you stray one hair from this perfect command, you are damned to hell
> forever.
> This strong view can be used to view God two ways. You may say, "What a
> mean unfair God. He needs to lighten up." Many religionists these days
> have tried to soften and water down the law and God's role as judge.
> However, this also softens and waters down His mercy. Thus, the Gospel is
> taught like a teddy bear to help you lead a happy and successful life. But,
> if you keep in mind the awesomeness and wrath of God, it makes His mercy and
> grace seem so much sweeter.
Puhleeeeze! This is like saying that the most
compassionate man is the one who beats the crap
out of his wife first and then hugs her with tears
streaming down his face afterwards.
If the fundie god wasn't so violent to begin with
he wouldn't need to then compensate for it with
the mercy later.
This is bull-shit.
Stan
Jason Harris
I understand where you are coming from. In our human logic, we think in
terms of human relationships. The most admirable thing to do is overlook a
wrong and forgive even the worst wrongs done to you. We should, as humans,
do this. Jesus taught this often and showed how much he loved forgiveness
and mercy with His death for us. Though this may be a perfect example for
human activity, it is not a transcending force over-riding God and
everything else. God is not a human. He is God. The ultimate reality. He
is "I Am" As the sovreign ruler of everything from galaxies to quarks, He
holds all things together with perfect justice and equality. It is the only
thing that He can possibly do. Yes, God is limited. He absolutly cannot do
anything imperfect or unjust. We cannot understand His ways or thoughts,
for they are not our ways or thought. If he gave a false conviction and let
sin slide by unpunished, He would no longer be God. Any error or
inconsistency in His nature would be totally contrary to what He is. That
is why He punished His Son, to let us live without compromising His
character of perfect justice.
*Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
>
> > The gnawing rodent wrote:
> > >
> > > saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> > > Adam did ?"
> >
>
> You're NOT blamed.. but you did inherit a corruptible human body, which
> is subject (one day) to death..
>
> >
> >
> > > are sinless.
> >
> > pretty decent human beings who occasionally make a
> > mistake or succumb to a minor temptation. Most
> > people will never come within a mile of doing
> > anything to warrant eternity in hell.
> >
>
> destruction of both body and soul for those who reject Christ. Your
> opinion about sin is certainly something which you are entitled to have.
> Serious crime still exists, though.. how come? What a about the gun
> toting Serb murder squads?
>
> >
> > To believe otherwise is pathological
>
> Or, just different
>
> >
> > >
> > > degree of fear of God. We're worse today. We
> > > sin without shame or second-thought. We don't
> > > fear the Lord.
> >
> > rodent:
> > There ain't no sin. There are crimes and even bad
> > acts committed by individuals.
> > But people ain't born sinners.
> >
>
> So where, then, DOES this stuff come from? This is along the lines of
> the Chicken/egg dilemma.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
> > > that we're worse !
> > >
> > > There will be no innocent people in hell.
> >
> > shortly after birth?
> >
>
> Have newborn babies sinned? No... God will judge fairly, trust that he
> will make the right call on this one..
>
> Look at it this way, the condemned die TWICE.. once for what Adam did,
> once for what THEY did (this happens at the judgement seat of God.)
>
> >
> > You are truly worthy of your chosen name.
> >
> > Stan
Well, there's yet another interpretation of god's
blueprint.
Next please.
Stan
*Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
> > Newsflash from the 21st century to the gnawing
> > rodent:
> > There ain't no sin. There are crimes and even bad
> > acts committed by individuals.
> > But people ain't born sinners.
> >
> So where, then, DOES this stuff come from? This is along the lines of
> the Chicken/egg dilemma.
This stuff (ie, crimes, violence) comes from the
fact that certain individuals are sick.
Maybe they were abused as children. Maybe they're
just plain old psychos. There's no chicken or the
egg puzzle here. Some people are just screwed up.
Don't make it something bigger than it is.
> > > We've inherited not only Adam's punishment, BUT
> > > ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
> > > that we're worse !
> > >
> > > There will be no innocent people in hell.
Oh tell that to the fundies here like datarat!
Anyone who hasn't adopted their brand of religious
zealotry will burn in hell.
> > Like all the millions of new born babies who died
> > shortly after birth?
> >
No but many religions claim if they die before
being baptized (or whatever is deemed necessary to
save their souls) they will go to hell or limbo.
> Have newborn babies sinned? No... God will judge fairly, trust that he
> will make the right call on this one..
Can you provide proof that he will? Don't just
make a claim based on wishful thinking.
There are lotsa people here who will read this
call you a PoMo heretic.
Stan
beyond.help
> learning to obey commands and exercise some self control just part of
> growing up?
Obviously, no.
> Since Adam would have had, by definition, the moral compass of a toddler,
> how could he have "sinned"?
> Would you leave toddler alone in a room with a loaded gun and only an
> admonishment to not play with the gun?
Why of course !
> > he not only became guilty,
> How?
I've had my fun, such questions are more than obvious.
Bye !
beyond.help
> bible won't advance your argument with people who
> see it as a mistake and contradiction filled book
> written by a bunch of old geezers during a time of
> high superstition who had their own personal
> agendas to push and axes to grind.
And people wonder why i generally do not post sources. What's the
point when one is speaking to a bunch of doubters and non-believers ?
beyond.help
> > The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking the Christian to not use the
> > Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use Science!
> > Janie
> Agreed! But which christian interpretation of the
> bible should we accept as representative of the
> christian viewpoint?
Why the one that the holy ghost gave.
> There are so many (eg, hell
> is a real place,; no, hell is a state of mind,
> etc) even just in this ng that it must be very
> confusing for the christians let alone frustrating
> for the atheists who wish to engage them in
> healthy debate.
And it is my fault that the holy ghost could not make up his mind as to
what the correct theology was ?
The DataRat
Stan the God-Hater wrote:
"Most people are sinless, bro. Most people
are pretty decent human beings who
occasionally make a mistake or succumb to
a minor temptation. Most people will never
come within a mile of doing anything to warrant
eternity in hell."
The DataRat responds:
The above is quoted from Mr. Harris' post, as
the Genevan Rodent has Stan on killfile.Well, folks, Stan-the-God-Hater expresses the
humanistic viewpoint: Man is basically good.You be the judge ! Is man inherently good ?
The world is at war -or the verge of war- on
every continent. The 20th. century has been
the story of two world wars, and continuous
smaller ones. We've had genocide of 12 million
people in the 1940's. And, that repeated in the
1970's, and again in the 1990's, on lesser scale.In the United States, serial murder and mass
murder have become commonplace. But, now,
we have kids as young as 11 committing it.
Violent crime has increased over fourfold from
what it was just 30 years ago. And, even the
President is demonstrably an adulterer, liar,
perjurer, obstructer of justice, and all around
scumball.A Jewish scholar, on studying the men behind
the Nazi genocide, was surprised to learn that
they were not monsters as he had expected.
He coined the term "the banality of evil" to
describe the phenomenon.Hitler and Stalin were pretty rough around the
edges. But, Chamberlain and Churchill both
( at one time ) thought Hitler to be a prototypical
modern, enlightened leader. And, FDR was
always quite impressed with "Uncle Joe".The majority of people in Nazi Germany, Soviet
Russia, and Communist Cambodia had no
problem following Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot,
respectively. Maybe only Germans, Russians,
and Cambodians are sinful.It just seems to the Calvinist Rodent that
Original Sin is one of the most easily provable
of all Biblical doctrines. Naive humanist God-
haters like Stan are the ones believing fairy
tales !
The DataRat
.
Frank Norman
[snip]
> You are totally out to lunch! I said nothing about
> free will pro or con!
> Where did you get this? I said it's wrong to
> punish the descendants of some wrong doer for all
> eternity. read my post again. It's below.
Well, some Calvinists might offer you that over-simplified version of
the Fall, but there is actually more to it than that.
When Adam sinned, he not only became guilty, his moral nature was also
corrupted. And this corruption was passed on to his descendants.
So while Adam truly had a free will, we are born predisposed to sin.
If you read Paul's letter to the Romans, he look at how the logic
develops - he talks about everyone sinning, and thus being under God's
wrath, and then talks of how one can be declared righteous on the basis
of faith in Christ, well BEFORE he introduces the concept of "original
sin".
But it would be a mistake to talk of everyday mishaps, or even tragic
accidents, as some sort of Divine "revenge". Sometimes God does step in
and do that, but most of the time its just the natural results of human
evil. And if your life is not in accordance with His will, He has made
no promise to protect you.
Look at what Jesus said in Luke chapter 13 verses 1 to 5.
Frank Norman
> Puhleeeeze! This is like saying that the most
> compassionate man is the one who beats the crap
> out of his wife first and then hugs her with tears
> streaming down his face afterwards.
the relationship between God and His creatures is not like that between
a man and his wife.
your analogy is simply silly.
God does not punish anyone needlessly... but of course, as a "liberated
modern" you seem to reject the idea of anyone holding you accountable to
any moral standard. you want to be free to make your own rules and do as
you like.
> If the fundie god wasn't so violent to begin with
> he wouldn't need to then compensate for it with
> the mercy later.
>
> This is bull-shit.
What you said above, you mean? ;-)
Some obvious points:
1) God created all things
2) He is the one who decided the universe would exist at all
3) He is the one who maintains it all in being.
4) So He gets to make the rules.
Is that really so hard to grasp?
> Stan
> > Only God's love can overpower the His law. The
> > law is a huge incomprehensible ominious beast that, we as puny humans,
> > cannot stand one second under, being total trash. But this all-powerful God
> > gave His life and became nothing to saves us from this law and judgement and
> > without any merit or worthiness on our part. No condemnation. That is
> > Grace. Big and powerful.
Indeed.
"Behold therefore the kindness and the severity of God!"
*Stan
> Stan the God-Hater wrote:
Well, when I read your posts gnawing little rodent
I begin to suspect that maybe evil and satan do
exist.
Scurry away back to your hole, evil one!
Stan
*Stan
> Look at what Jesus said in Luke chapter 13 verses 1 to 5.
You gotta get that pointing to a verse in the
bible won't advance your argument with people who
see it as a mistake and contradiction filled book
written by a bunch of old geezers during a time of
high superstition who had their own personal
agendas to push and axes to grind.
Stan
Janie
on kill-file? Sorta defeats the purpose of the kill file doesn't it? Why do
you bother?
Isn't that a bit........odd?
Janie
The DataRat wrote in message <378ECD5A...@home.com>...
*Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
>
> > Puhleeeeze! This is like saying that the most
> > compassionate man is the one who beats the crap
> > out of his wife first and then hugs her with tears
> > streaming down his face afterwards.
>
> the relationship between God and His creatures is not like that between
> a man and his wife.
So, what's it like? You tell me. I really want to
know. Perhaps you will turn out to be the one of
hundreds of self-proclaimed true christians who
really has the low-down from god.
> your analogy is simply silly.
> God does not punish anyone needlessly...
Ever hear of Job for one?
> but of course, as a "liberated
> modern" you seem to reject the idea of anyone holding you accountable to
> any moral standard. you want to be free to make your own rules and do as
> you like.
>
I believe in God. I am not an atheist. However
most atheists are pretty ethical people.
It takes guts to take such a position.
> > If the fundie god wasn't so violent to begin with
> > he wouldn't need to then compensate for it with
> > the mercy later.
> >
> > This is bull-shit.
>
> What you said above, you mean? ;-)
>
Yes, but I'm going with the fundie interpretaion
of god--not mine.
> Some obvious points:
>
> 1) God created all things
> 2) He is the one who decided the universe would exist at all
> 3) He is the one who maintains it all in being.
> 4) So He gets to make the rules.
>
> Is that really so hard to grasp?
>
So, even if you don't KNOW it YOURSELF you have
just agreed with my position: God is responsible
then for everything even evil. Don't blame Satan
as he is like the small-time drug peddler on the
street corner while god is like the head of the
Medelin drug cartel!
>
> > Stan
> > > Only God's love can overpower the His law. The
> > > law is a huge incomprehensible ominious beast that,
now you have contradicted yourself: I thought you
understood it?
> > >we as puny humans,
> > > cannot stand one second under, being total trash.
Total trash? Self-esteem problems have we?
> > >But this all-powerful God
> > > gave His life and became nothing to saves us from this law and judgement and
> > > without any merit or worthiness on our part. No condemnation. That is
> > > Grace. Big and powerful.
This sounds like a violent abusive father who
randomly beats up his children and wife and then
once a year on Xmas showers them with gifts and
affection.
Stan
Ruth J. Serra
The DataRat wrote:
To me this is rude. Would God call those who might be making honest
mistakes (not saying Stan was mistaken, but DataRat obviously thinks so)
God-Haters? If E did you'd be very sure He would know beyond a shadow of
a doubt that the heart was wrong...can DataRat know the conditio of ANY
one else's heart?
Janie
The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking the Christian to not use the
Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use Science!
Janie
*Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<378F3F67...@earthlink.net>...
Elfish Chimera
Frank Norman wrote:
>
> Stan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > You are totally out to lunch! I said nothing about
> > free will pro or con!
> > Where did you get this? I said it's wrong to
> > punish the descendants of some wrong doer for all
> > eternity. read my post again. It's below.
>
> Well, some Calvinists might offer you that over-simplified version of
> the Fall, but there is actually more to it than that.
> When Adam sinned,
Does a toddler "sin" when s/he fails to obey a parental command -- or is
learning to obey commands and exercise some self control just part of
growing up?
Since Adam would have had, by definition, the moral compass of a toddler,
how could he have "sinned"?
Would you leave toddler alone in a room with a loaded gun and only an
admonishment to not play with the gun?
> he not only became guilty,
How?
If the above toddler shoots a playmate with the loaded gun you left in the
room with them, who bears the moral blame for both acts?
> his moral nature was also
> corrupted.
How?
> And this corruption was passed on to his descendants.
How? By what mechanism?
> So while Adam truly had a free will, we are born predisposed to sin.
Really.
> If you read Paul's letter to the Romans, he look at how the logic
> develops - he talks about everyone sinning, and thus being under God's
> wrath,
Yessss, and he performs his little bit of magic by misquoting the Old
Testament.
> and then talks of how one can be declared righteous on the basis
> of faith in Christ, well BEFORE he introduces the concept of "original
> sin".
>
> But it would be a mistake to talk of everyday mishaps, or even tragic
> accidents, as some sort of Divine "revenge". Sometimes God does step in
> and do that, but most of the time its just the natural results of human
> evil.
And that is the absolute sickest part of Calvinism in particular, and
Christianity as a whole.
The presupposition, against all the evidence, that humans are just
naturally "evil".
> And if your life is not in accordance with His will, He has made
> no promise to protect you.
Omnimax can't make the world work right? How absurd.
ciao
Elfish Chimera
--
*Stan
Anyone who knows me will readily attest to the
fact that I am not (repeat NOT) a God-hater.
(Indeed, I attend services practically every
Sunday and drive 35 miles each way to do so. Total
commute: 70 miles! I offer this statistic only for
the pleasure of trivia buffs, such as D.M.Bruyn,
who will then find a way of bringing it up again a
week later in a completely different thread. The
rest of you please ignore this stat.)
Datarat has attempted to scurry away from me (by
kill-filing me unsuccessfully) because I am
pointing out how absolutely pathological his
stance is. datarat suffers from a horrible and
terminal desease worse than cancer: it's called
self-loathing. Underneath all the smokescreen of a
bible-thumping fundamentalist lies a man who
deeply hates himself and all humanity. He sees
himself and everyone else as born evil.
I feel sorry for the poor creature. Even his
chosen online name "datarat" suggests a deep and
profound sense of self-hatred. What healthy human
being would call themselves "rat"?
Stan
*Stan
>
> Stan,
> The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking the Christian to not use the
> Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use Science!
> Janie
>
Agreed! But which christian interpretation of the
bible should we accept as representative of the
christian viewpoint? There are so many (eg, hell
is a real place,; no, hell is a state of mind,
etc) even just in this ng that it must be very
confusing for the christians let alone frustrating
for the atheists who wish to engage them in
healthy debate.
Stan
Janie
I can understand what you are saying, but the same thing is true with the
atheists........so many theories of science and so forth. Thats why we
cannot make any headway here....some firm ground rules must be set don't you
agree?
Janie
*Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<378F4C59...@earthlink.net>...
*Stan
>
> Stan,
> I can understand what you are saying, but the same thing is true with the
> atheists........so many theories of science and so forth. Thats why we
> cannot make any headway here....some firm ground rules must be set don't you
> agree?
> Janie
The atheists don't have theories. It's the
scientists who have the theories.
Atheists just have doubt that the biblical god or
any god exists. They need proof to believe.
Stan
D.M. Bruyns
there!), so, really 'Starstan' or something like that, wrote:
>
> Ruth J. Serra wrote:
> >
> > The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > > Stan the God-Hater wrote:
>
> >
> > To me this is rude. Would God call those who might be making honest
> > mistakes (not saying Stan was mistaken, but DataRat obviously thinks so)
> > God-Haters? If E did you'd be very sure He would know beyond a shadow of
> > a doubt that the heart was wrong...can DataRat know the conditio of ANY
> > one else's heart?
>
> Anyone who knows me will readily attest to the
> fact that I am not (repeat NOT) a God-hater.
Yes, Stan I have read this a number of times from you now, in responses
to others and to myself. Fact is, there are quite a few people on the
religious NGs who got
the impression that you were an atheist (or at least an agnostic) from
the way you
went about attacking 'fundies'. The New Thought beliefs you have since
stated to be yours weren't, really, all that apparent when you 'trolled'
on in. In fact you
still may be an atheist or agnostic or whatever - this IS Usenet
remember. The troll 'Goldblatt', whom you have hunted yourself,
pretended (and, ridiculously, still pretends) to be a Calvinist and he
got away with this for ages but nobody falls
for it now. A while back we had 'Teresita' who pretended for a long time
to be a Catholic in posts to alt.atheism, but then - to the
embarrassment of her atheist detractors revealed herself to be an
unbeliever. She then started to troll the
religious NGs, imparting silly opinion. Bizarre, what?
So anyway, I hope you are not a God-hater, but when you got tired of
tracking
Goldie you rather abruptly switched to running after every 'fundie' you
could
find, waving a great big shillelagh at them! The style is similar to
that of
the usual atheist mutant trolls who swarm into the compound to make
trouble.
> (Indeed, I attend services practically every
> Sunday and drive 35 miles each way to do so. Total
> commute: 70 miles! I offer this statistic only for
> the pleasure of trivia buffs, such as D.M.Bruyn,
Bruyns is my name, STIN! ;-)
> who will then find a way of bringing it up again a
> week later in a completely different thread.
Huh?
> The
> rest of you please ignore this stat.)
Going to ignore it myself now, actually!
>
> Datarat has attempted to scurry away from me (by
> kill-filing me unsuccessfully)
Stan, that's tosh! He DID killfile you. He can't see your posts, except
when
others who are not in Data's killfile reply to them. Maybe Data got the
impression
you were a troll up to no good? Now WHERE would he have got that idea.
> because I am
> pointing out how absolutely pathological his
> stance is. datarat suffers from a horrible and
> terminal desease worse than cancer: it's called
> self-loathing. Underneath all the smokescreen
Stan, calm down!
> of a
> bible-thumping fundamentalist lies a man who
> deeply hates himself and all humanity. He sees
> himself and everyone else as born evil.
>
> I feel sorry for the poor creature. Even his
> chosen online name "datarat" suggests a deep and
> profound sense of self-hatred. What healthy human
> being would call themselves "rat"?
Ever read any Harry Harrison, Stan? Ever notice 'Soylent Green is
People!"
in the DataRat's header?
>
> Stan
By the way Stan you never told me what Ernest Holmes has to say about
name-calling!
*Stan
[attack snipped]
So, how many times do you have to be asked what it
is you believe?
Tell us, so that we ignorant trolls may know what
someone as enlightened as thou believes.
Stan
*Stan
>
> "...can DataRat know the conditio of ANY
> one else's heart?"
>
>
> The DataRat
So, you admit you are dark of heart.
Finally, a modicum of honesty from the plague
carrier.
Stan
The DataRat
Elfish Chimera
Janie wrote:
>
> Stan,
> I can understand what you are saying, but the same thing is true with the
> atheists........so many theories of science and so forth.
Not even almost true.
> Thats why we
> cannot make any headway here....some firm ground rules must be set don't you
> agree?
How's about:
We ALL operate on four underlying presuppositions.
1. The validity of logic. Logic is presupposed every time we make an
utterance
designed to urge acceptance of some proposition, even the acceptance or
rejection
of logic itself. As such logic is a necessary truth.
2. The existence of other minds. Else who are we trying to convince of
anything?
3. The existence of a common mental/perceptual world. In order for our
utterances to convey any meaning, to transfer thoughts and ideas and facts
we
believe about the world, there must already be some common ground for
understanding. Call it methodological naturalism, although that term may
already be
preempted with its own definition. But when we speak of gravity or water or
clouds
to another who seems to speak our own language we would be somewhat
surprised if
they didn't know what we were talking about. Common English (or French, or
Swahili,
but here we use English) words convey, where they convey information about
the
world, sufficiently similar ideas about that world; where they convey
grammatical
information about the sentence, sufficiently similar cues, etc.
Else communication could not happen.
4. The final presupposition is that of the stability of that common
world.
Indeed it is necessary for any knowledge at all that we normally be able
to trust
both our memories and our expectations. That the past has always been like
the
present, or that the future will continue to be like the past cannot be
proven, but
that assumption is necessary in order to claim to be able to know anything
at all.
These are the presuppositions we ALL share, if we attempt to
communicate with
anyone at all. The theist tries to make a god responsible in some part for
some or
all of them, but to get to the god in the first place, he must have already
accepted the above presuppositions to have learned enough language and
philosophy
or religion to articulate his belief, so the presuppositions actually come
before
the articulated god belief.
*Stan
>
> Stan,
> The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking the Christian to not use the
> Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use Science!
> Janie
Janie,
It might help you to think of atheists as being
from Missouri. You know, "the show me state". For
you, or anyone else, to just declare something is
true is not enough for them. There are far too
many charlatans out there hiding under the cloak
of god.
I think that most atheists come here not to troll
(as cowardly ignoramuses like datarat claim) but
to debate. Maybe deep down inside they may want to
hear something that will convert them to a belief
in God. (Personally, that's my guess as to why
they're here.)
However, it's difficult for them to get that
excited about anything that they hear from
self-professed xians because there is unending
argumentation between xians about how to decipher
almost every passage in the bible.
If xians can't decide what god is doing with us
then how can we expect atheists to grasp his
motives and plan?
Stan
Elfish Chimera
"beyond.help" wrote:
>
> > Does a toddler "sin" when s/he fails to obey a parental command -- or is
> > learning to obey commands and exercise some self control just part of
> > growing up?
>
> Obviously, no.
>
> > Since Adam would have had, by definition, the moral compass of a toddler,
> > how could he have "sinned"?
>
> > Would you leave toddler alone in a room with a loaded gun and only an
> > admonishment to not play with the gun?
>
> Why of course !
>
> > > he not only became guilty,
>
> > How?
>
> I've had my fun, such questions are more than obvious.
> Bye !
Yep, run away little child, you've been caught with your epistemological
pants down around your intellectual ankles.
ciao
Elfish Chimera.
Elfish Chimera
"beyond.help" wrote:
>
> > You gotta get that pointing to a verse in the
> > bible won't advance your argument with people who
> > see it as a mistake and contradiction filled book
> > written by a bunch of old geezers during a time of
> > high superstition who had their own personal
> > agendas to push and axes to grind.
>
> And people wonder why i generally do not post sources. What's the
> point when one is speaking to a bunch of doubters and non-believers ?
It's called providing the factual support for your arguments.
I provide as many sources as I have time to do so just so that anyone who
doubts or wants to investigate the factual basis for assertions in the
premises of my arguments can do so.
For you need TWO things for an argument: Proper logical form and true
premises.
If the form of the argument is flawed, then the conclusion - even if true!
- does not follow from/is not proved by the invalid argument.
And if the premises are false, then likewise the conclusion of the
argument cannot be trusted.
Thus although the logical form of you arguments can be analyzed without
regard to the truth of any facts you assert in them, if we can't verify the
facts (particularly ones which cannot be presumed to be general knowledge
or trivially easy for anyone to check), then at best one must withhold
assent to any conclusions you reach.
ciao
Elfish Chimera
The DataRat
"...some Calvinists might offer you that over-simplified
version of the Fall, but there is actually more to it than
that. When Adam sinned, he not only became guilty,
his moral nature was also corrupted. And this corruption
was passed on to his descendants. So while Adam truly
had a free will, we are born predisposed to sin."
THAT ~is~ pretty much the Calvinist position.
We might state it a little more strongly than
"predisposed to sin". More like slaves to sin
( Romans 6:6 )."It is owing not to creation -but to the
corruption of nature- that man has
become the slave of sin, and can do
nothing but evil." ( Institutes; John
Calvin, Bk. 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 1 )
The DataRat
.
Elfish Chimera
The DataRat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "...some Calvinists might offer you that over-simplified
> version of the Fall, but there is actually more to it than
> that. When Adam sinned, he not only became guilty,
> his moral nature was also corrupted. And this corruption
> was passed on to his descendants. So while Adam truly
> had a free will, we are born predisposed to sin."
>
>
>
> THAT ~is~ pretty much the Calvinist position.
>
> We might state it a little more strongly than
> "predisposed to sin". More like slaves to sin
> ( Romans 6:6 ).
>
> "It is owing not to creation -but to the
> corruption of nature- that man has
> become the slave of sin, and can do
> nothing but evil." ( Institutes; John
> Calvin, Bk. 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 1 )
All of which is patently and obviously absurd.
If non-Christians (and before them, non-Jews I guess) were "slaves to
sin", and sin a horrible bad thing that drives those enslaved to it to
commit horrible sinful acts (how else can one know, after all, except "by
their fruits"?), then civilization outside Judaism/Christianity would have
been impossible since no society would have held together, being rotted
from within by the unstoppable evil of individuals.
Of course this did not happen, and indeed none the greatest civilizations
of antiquity were either Jewish or Christian.
Christianity ascended just as Rome collapsed, and rode Europe into a dark
age of poverty, ignorance, and oppression of the weak for a thousand years,
while high civilizations in India and China and Japan and the Americas
continued on, blithely and perhaps fortunately ignorant of Christianity.
Islam even arose later, and during the European dark ages, the splendor
that was Muslim culture preserved much of what we have left of our
classical heritage which was all but destroyed, either actively or by
simple neglect, by Christians.
And today China and Japan and India and the rest of southeast Asia survive
just fine without any help from Christianity.
Janie
EXACTLY!
DID EVERYONE FINALLY SEE WHAT DATA WROTE!!!
HALLELUJAH!
The DataRat wrote in message <378F77ED...@home.com>...
Janie
I was responding to a particular statement Stan had made. He wanted the
Christians to answer all his questions without using the Bible.
IMO Christianity and science are reconcilable, but in this forum they are at
best, at odds.
Blessings Dave,
Janie
Dave Wood wrote in message <2ROj3.8261$yD2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>> Stan,
>> The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking
>the Christian to not use the
>> Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use
>Science!
>> Janie
>
>Janie, I am disappointed. Are you suggesting that
>Christianity and science are irreconcilable? or at
>best are they at odds?
>
>Dave
>
>
Rev. Peter
An excellent post, and one all people should read and consider. If christianity is
necessary in order to achieve a higher level of being, than christian nations would
have been superior to all others.
peace
Rev. Peter
*Stan
>
> Dear Dave,
> IMO Christianity and science are reconcilable, but in this forum they are at
> best, at odds.
> Blessings Dave,
> Janie
Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
lived millions of years ago?
Explanation please!
Stan
*Stan
>
> > Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
> > lived millions of years ago?
> > Explanation please!
>
> progenitor to the ape that you descended from?
>
> Dave
And where did you come from Dave? The stork?
Stan
Janie
I find is difficult to have a rational repore with you.........you ask all
kinds of baited questions, but won't answer questions posed to you. Why is
that? Also, you tend to flit back and forth so much, I have problems
following your thoughts.
Is it just me or is anyone else having difficulty?
Janie
*Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<378FF483...@earthlink.net>...
>Janie wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dave,
>
>> IMO Christianity and science are reconcilable, but in this forum they are
at
>> best, at odds.
>> Blessings Dave,
>> Janie
>
>Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
>lived millions of years ago?
>Explanation please!
>
Janie
Stan so eloquently asked:
>> Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
>> lived millions of years ago?
>> Explanation please!
Stan,
God made the whole thing?
Are you a Christian Stan or not?
Janie
Dave Wood wrote in message <9DSj3.8345$yD2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
GoldRush
> > Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
> > lived millions of years ago?
> > Explanation please!
>
> And which particular specie of dinosaur was the
> progenitor to the ape that you descended from?
>
> Dave
Oh, Dave . . .that caused a huge giggle!
Best one in a week!
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
*Stan
>
> Dear Stan,
> I find is difficult to have a rational repore
"rapport"
But what about them dinosaurs? How do they fit in
with the bible?
That's one of the things that got me back in grade
one.
Stan
GoldRush
> So Mr Elf it seems you have done a little work on
> what may be generically termed critical thinking.
> What is your definition of a fact?
>
> --
> Dave
> Elfish Chimera <elfish_...@Juno.com> wrote in
> message news:378F7F71...@Juno.com...
> > ciao
> >
> > Elfish Chimera
> >
> > --
> > "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I
> am wrong in thought or
> > deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth,
> which never yet hurt
> > anybody. It is only persistence in
> self-delusion and ignorance which does
> > harm."
> > -- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS,
> VI, 21
Psst . . .Dave . . .
Little fairies do not know about facts, or even about genders,
let alone about theologies.
They only know how to flit, flurry, and troll . . .never lighting,
but going from here to there to here to there to here to there . . .
*Stan
>
> Stan so eloquently asked:
>
> >> Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
> >> lived millions of years ago?
> >> Explanation please!
>
> God made the whole thing?
> Janie
>
But the bible does not leave any space for them!
It lists all the descendants of Adam and Eve all
the way to Jesus! (I might be a bit off here. I am
open to correction.)
So the bible leaves no time frame for them to have
existed in!
That's my point, Janie. As far as the bible is
concerned they never existed.
But they did.
> Are you a Christian Stan or not?
I don't think that most of the xians here would
accept me as one of them.
However, yes I do believe in a God who looks
favorably on all good people regardless of their
faith. He applies the same rules to everyone. He
does not favor born agains.
Stan
*Stan
>
> Dave Wood wrote:
>
> > > Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
> > > lived millions of years ago?
> > > Explanation please!
> >
> > progenitor to the ape that you descended from?
> >
> > Dave
>
> Oh, Dave . . .that caused a huge giggle!
>
> Best one in a week!
>
Ok, dave didn't even attempt to address this one.
How about you???
Betchas can't!
Stan
*Stan
>
> > Psst . . .Dave . . .
> >
> > Little fairies do not know about facts, or even
> about genders,
> > let alone about theologies.
> >
> > They only know how to flit, flurry, and troll .
> . .never lighting,
> > but going from here to there to here to there to
> here to there . . .
>
> message - we are trying to keep this ~very~ quiet.
>
> Yes GoldRush, I was sort of aware of that. Just
> hadn't bothered to articulate it as well as you
> have.
>
> <Dave with elfish grin on face, silently goes back
> to work>
ROFLAO! Oh you two wags just kill me! Imagine
that! making fun of gays by alluding to them as
"fairies"! How friggin refreshingly creative of
you two. Have you guys thought about taking your
act on the road?
BTW, which one of you buttheads is Beavis?
Stan
GoldRush
Well, we can't, because we have never heard of dinosaurs
having baby monkeys! Don't know a thing about that!
GoldRush
Oh, that's good . . .what got you kicked out of grade one?
*Stan
>
> Stan, I am disappointed.
> Why settle for "a" god, when you can have THE GOD?
> He is real you know, He reveals Himself to me every day.
> Janie
But I do believe in THE God just not the
irrational, hot-tempered, jealous, petty, sadistic
one the bible describes.
No thanks to that!
Amen.
Actually, I believe the bible is just a book
written by humans who made the same false claim
that some of the charlatans here in this ng make:
we have direct communications with GOD, so listen
to us!
The bible has served up a totally unpalatable
picture of god for anyone with a mind and a
conscience.
So, what about them dinosaurs??????
Stan
*Stan
> There is none righteous, no not one. ~Absolutely~
> nobody is good.
>
> Unrepentant sinners are judged unto damnation.
> Those saved, are saved from their just deserts -
> damnation.
>
> Dave
WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS, DAVE?
{{{{{{{{{{{{ HELLOOO }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{ IS ANYBODY HOME? }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{ WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Stan
GoldRush
Elfish Chimera might take exception to you calling him/her
a gay. We just call a name by a name and "Elfish" means
"little" and "Chimera" means "fairy."
(You know, like Tinkerbell, in Peter Pan?)
You are the one who has a dirty mind and spirit! (But we will
let the wee spirit quiety deal with you, itself!)
Psst . . .Tinkerbell . . .where are you, little one? Are
you
reading this?
*Stan
pathetic attempt at humor:
> Well, we can't, because we have never heard of dinosaurs
> having baby monkeys! Don't know a thing about that!
>
{{{{{{{ WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS? THEY SORTA BLOW
YOUR BIBLE OUT OF THE WATER )))))))
Stan
GoldRush
No! Dinosaurs do not blow! They chomp.
You are a liar, Stan!
*Stan
managed to participate in this thread so far and
completely avoid the subject matter: those pesky
dinosaurs!
Well, maybe tommorrow morning....?
Stan
GoldRush
> > Have you guys thought about taking your act on
> the road?
>
> Nagh. Too many trucks.
>
> > BTW, which one of you buttheads is Beavis?
>
> Dunno. Just checking license. Nope, not me.
> What about you GoldRush?
>
> Dave
Who is Beavis? (We know a few "Buttheads!")
*Stan
> Who is Beavis? (We know a few "Buttheads!")
>
> GoldRush
{{{ DINOSAURS BLOW THE BIBLE OUT OF THE WATER }}}}
Stan
*Stan
GoldRush
Three?
Elfish Chimera
ILOV...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In article <378F8DFC...@Juno.com>,
> Says who? Just because a civilization rises, grows and is 'successful'
> in terms of expansion for a short time, doesn't mean it isn't sinful.
If every individual is utterly lacking in personal integrity, there can be
no contracts, no personal property, no cooperative behavior.
The only place where "get it right or die" kind of evil exists inside an
organization is in mediocre Hollywood movies with cartoon villains.
A civilization of sociopaths is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > Of course this did not happen, and indeed none the greatest
> civilizations
> > of antiquity were either Jewish or Christian.
> >
>
> And all of those civilizations are long buried thanks to
> their 'enslavement to sin'.
Don't look now, but the legacy of Rome surrounds you and infuses almost
every aspect of your life. The political center collapsed, but even English
is heavily indebted to Latin, and of course several major European
languages are simply evolutionary descendants of Latin.
The legal systems of almost every European country outside the UK can be
traced back directly NOT to the Bible, but to the legal codes of Rome.
And that includes even the code of Canon law.
Most of the rites, the holidays, much of the symbolism of the Roman
Catholic Church is simply paganism adopted and renamed.
We owe our philosophical heritage to the Greeks, as well as our artistic
roots, both fine arts and performing arts.
Even Christianity itself, at least the parts Christ actually contributed
to the mixture, are warmed over Stoicism.
The classical civilizations political boundaries may no longer exist, but
you can be sure the classical civilizations still exist. You live in their
legacy.
>
> > Christianity ascended just as Rome collapsed, and rode Europe
> into a dark
> > age of poverty, ignorance, and oppression of the weak for a thousand
> years,
>
> The said age was an age of nations rising from where Rome had left off,
> meaning (often) smaller/more localized kingdoms, etc. Many of the
> rulers took advantage of the rise of Christianity for their own
> personal gain; this, of course, wasn't really Christianity, since being
> a Christian isn't something someone can be born into but has to commit
> themselves to.
Oh, so if things are bad its not Christianity, if things are good it is
Christianity, and if things are good where there is scarcely a Christian in
sight I suppose its the work of the devil.
Try a logic class.
>
> Above you speak of the "oppression of the weak" and such as if it were
> brought on by Christianity, when in fact the spread of Christianity can
> be thanked for things like the eventual ending of slavery,
Wow, after 2000 years and the development of steam engines and a general
shift in the public morals, after millennia where Kings ruled by divine
right and slaves were just a fact of life in much of Christendom, suddenly
its "Christianity" that gets the after the fact credit.
No thanks, don't buy it.
If Christianity were able to work its ethical wonders on its adherents,
kings and slaves should have disappeared 1500 years ago or more.
Since it didn't, then Christianity is not what can take the credit.
> the rise of
> women in society,
Again, your parroting the party line, but it just doesn't wash.
Women weren't allowed education, weren't allowed to work outside the home
for the most part (except of course, for "whores", which the good Christian
men still patronized), and didn't even get the right to vote here in the
land of the free/home of the brave until this century, and it took a world
war to get that finally approved.
But if "the holy spirit" were really able to work such wondrous
transformations, and if scripture were really even the least bit clear,
then all that should have happened 1500 years ago, at the same time Kings
were deposed and slavery should have ended.
> and the establishment of public hospitals- three
> things that even *today* are still not found in many non-Christian
> nations (or, perhaps more saddeningly accurate, nations that actively
> oppose Christianity and Christian values). As time went on, though, it
> was Christianity's rise that eventually pulled Europe out of the gutter.
Christianity's RISE? "They" had the whole European subcontinent by the
throat for a thousand years, the Pope in Rome being a de facto Emperor for
hundreds of years.
If scripture and belief were going to work anything on their own, they had
a thousand years to do it.
In fact, of course, until the works of classical paganism were revived and
studied again, Europe remained stagnant.
Once some of the classical works started to be studied, the Renaissance
started, and then and only then did things begin to change.
>
> > while high civilizations in India and China and Japan and the Americas
> > continued on, blithely and perhaps fortunately ignorant of
> Christianity.
> > Islam even arose later, and during the European dark ages, the
> splendor
> > that was Muslim culture preserved much of what we have left of our
> > classical heritage which was all but destroyed, either actively or by
> > simple neglect, by Christians.
> >
> > And today China and Japan and India and the rest of southeast
> Asia survive
> > just fine without any help from Christianity.
> >
>
> Surely you jest. China is ruled by tyrants,
You consider them tyrants, but they don't have homeless peopled condemned
to sleep in the streets -- and no they don't just shoot them.
Do they have a long ways to go to achieve parity in human rights with the
modern Western industrialized countries? Yes, but then look at what
Christian Great Britain DID to China in the name of money, and the
political maneuvering before during and after W.W.II.
The Christian West MADE China what it is today. It is still trying to
recover from its early contacts with Christians.
> India is overrun with
> sickness and poverty and most of southeast Asia is run by tyrannical
> governments.
India is another country which is still trying to recover from its
contacts with the Christian West. And despite its internal problems,
exacerbated by a more polyglot population than anywhere else in the world
has managed to make its own nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and is
producing programmers second to none in the world.
And all those countries, even the worst, WORK.
People AREN'T killing each other in the streets. They aren't stealing each
other blind. They have families as strong as any anywhere in the world, and
people as dedicated to improving their countries as any Western Christian.
They just aren't Christian.
And according to what Christians say about "the sin nature of man", they
shouldn't be able to function AT ALL.
beyond.help
> these different races?
> Asians, Africans, Aborigines, North American and
> South American Indians, Northern Europeans,
> Texans, etc. when we began the restocking of the
> planet with just eight jews?
Hmmm, now that's a new one, and when did Noach and his family convert
to Judaism ?
beyond.help
> The first thing I thought of was, God ALREADY took the blame, and noone
> could do
> it better than Him. "He was made sin for us who knew no sin."
> "He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, surely
> He bore all
> our sorrows, and by His stripes ye were healed."
Which is the problem between what the bible states about Jesus' sins
and the theological statement of Paul.
beyond.help
> on the nun's face.
It was just a case of gas.
beyond.help
> existed.
There is no denial by the bible, just by the IRC.
> 2) The fact that no one else has any record of
> Noah's flood. Imagine that!
Tain't true, there is always the Summarian account.
> The world is flooded and all life, save that
> aboard the ark, is wiped out but no one else
> notices. Not the greeks, the egyptians, the
> asyrians, etc.
> Strange isn't it?
Gee, what's strange is that you have not heard about them. Even the
Chineese has such. But such evidence of the flood is ho hum.
Dave Wood
Dave Wood
> The debate is Christians Vs. Atheists. Asking
the Christian to not use the
> Bible here is like asking the Atheist no to use
Science!
> Janie
Janie, I am disappointed. Are you suggesting that
Christianity and science are irreconcilable? or at
best are they at odds?
Dave
Dave Wood
Dave Wood
Janie
My spell checker did not bring this spelling error to my attention.
Janie
*Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<37900107...@earthlink.net>...
Janie
Why settle for "a" god, when you can have THE GOD?
He is real you know, He reveals Himself to me every day.
*Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<37900266...@earthlink.net>...
>Janie wrote:
>>
>> Stan so eloquently asked:
>>
>> >> Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
>> >> lived millions of years ago?
>> >> Explanation please!
>>
Dave Wood
> accept me as one of them.
> However, yes I do believe in a God who looks
> favorably on all good people regardless of their
> faith. He applies the same rules to everyone. He
> does not favor born agains.
There is none righteous, no not one. ~Absolutely~
Dave Wood
ILOV...@yahoo.com
> Of course this did not happen, and indeed none the greatest
civilizations
> of antiquity were either Jewish or Christian.
>
And all of those civilizations are long buried thanks to
their 'enslavement to sin'.
> Christianity ascended just as Rome collapsed, and rode Europe
into a dark
> age of poverty, ignorance, and oppression of the weak for a thousand
years,
The said age was an age of nations rising from where Rome had left off,
meaning (often) smaller/more localized kingdoms, etc. Many of the
rulers took advantage of the rise of Christianity for their own
personal gain; this, of course, wasn't really Christianity, since being
a Christian isn't something someone can be born into but has to commit
themselves to.
Above you speak of the "oppression of the weak" and such as if it were
brought on by Christianity, when in fact the spread of Christianity can
be thanked for things like the eventual ending of slavery, the rise of
women in society, and the establishment of public hospitals- three
things that even *today* are still not found in many non-Christian
nations (or, perhaps more saddeningly accurate, nations that actively
oppose Christianity and Christian values). As time went on, though, it
was Christianity's rise that eventually pulled Europe out of the gutter.
> while high civilizations in India and China and Japan and the Americas
> continued on, blithely and perhaps fortunately ignorant of
Christianity.
> Islam even arose later, and during the European dark ages, the
splendor
> that was Muslim culture preserved much of what we have left of our
> classical heritage which was all but destroyed, either actively or by
> simple neglect, by Christians.
>
> And today China and Japan and India and the rest of southeast
Asia survive
> just fine without any help from Christianity.
>
Surely you jest. China is ruled by tyrants, India is overrun with
sickness and poverty and most of southeast Asia is run by tyrannical
governments.
CC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ilov...@my-deja.com
Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The gnawing plague-carrying DataRat wrote:
>
> > Well, folks, the Most High originally
> > installed
> > mankind in a Paradise. It was the
> > disobedience and rebellion of our
> > human
> > First Parents that got the rest of us
> > kicked-
> > out !
> >
And it's not as if the rest of us wouldn't have done the same as Adam
and Eve (sadly).
> > Our living in a imperfect, sinful
> > world was
> > NOT the Lord's intention. ( He could
> > have
> > prevented it, but only at the cost of
> > making
> >
> > The DataRat
> >
> Oh, this makes total sense! Yessir.
> Some distant relative makes a mistake and every
> descendent for all eternity has to suffer?
>
> Think about it, Mickey.
>
It's nothing me, you, and anyone else wouldn't have done - in fact, we
continue to do it! - and God knows it.
> Suppose one day back in high school another
> student took your lunch money after you told him
> not to. Twenty years later you have an opprtunity
> to finally exact revenge by doing a dirty deed to
> his daughter. (Maybe she's qualified for a job at
> your company but you'll hire some else just to
> show him!).
>
> Is your god so petty? Do you not desire a god who
> is above that sort of behaviour?
>
> Probably not, my plague-carrying little rodent.
>
> Stan
ilov...@my-deja.com
Stan <*****@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The gnawing rodent wrote:
> >
> > See this has gone as expected: The God-haters
> > saying, "Why should ~I~ be blamed for something
> > Adam did ?"
>
> Yes, why should I?
>
> > Well, they might have a point if they ...unlike Adam...
> > are sinless.
>
> Most people are sinless, bro. Most people are
> pretty decent human beings who occasionally make a
> mistake or succumb to a minor temptation. Most
> people will never come within a mile of doing
> anything to warrant eternity in hell.
>
> To believe otherwise is pathological.
Not to point out the plank in your eye when I'm sure I have a lumber
yard in my own, but your mistake seems to be that you believe that so
long as everyone isn't a rapist or an axe-weilding maniac or such, then
they're 'sinless'. "Most people will never come within a mile of doing
anything to warrant eternity in hell" - Unfortunately for you (and the
rest of us sinners), that's not for you to decide.
>
> >
> > But, at least Adam had shame for his sin, and a
> > degree of fear of God. We're worse today. We
> > sin without shame or second-thought. We don't
> > fear the Lord.
>
> Newsflash from the 21st century to the gnawing
> rodent:
> There ain't no sin. There are crimes and even bad
> acts committed by individuals.
> But people ain't born sinners.
>
You just proved his point. You refuse to even acknowledge sin's
exsitence!
> >
> > We've inherited not only Adam's punishment, BUT
> > ALSO ADAM'S SIN NATURE. Only difference is
> > that we're worse !
> >
> > There will be no innocent people in hell.
>
> Like all the millions of new born babies who died
> shortly after birth?
>
That will be for Almight God to decide.
> You are truly worthy of your chosen name.
>
> Stan
>
> >
> > The DataRat
Elfish Chimera
GoldRush wrote:
>
> *Stan wrote:
>
> > Dave Wood wrote:
> > >
> > ROFLAO! Oh you two wags just kill me! Imagine
> > that! making fun of gays by alluding to them as
> > "fairies"! How friggin refreshingly creative of
> > you two. Have you guys thought about taking your
> > act on the road?
> >
> > BTW, which one of you buttheads is Beavis?
> >
> > Stan
>
> Elfish Chimera might take exception to you calling him/her
> a gay. We just call a name by a name and "Elfish" means
> "little" and "Chimera" means "fairy."
>
> (You know, like Tinkerbell, in Peter Pan?)
>
> You are the one who has a dirty mind and spirit! (But we will
> let the wee spirit quiety deal with you, itself!)
>
> Psst . . .Tinkerbell . . .where are you, little one? Are you
> reading this?
The little minds play at calling names, blithely and unconsciously
condemning themselves with pettiness, not to say simple stupidity..
Bereft of arguments, they finally resort to the last resort of the small
minded.
Calling names like nasty little children in a school yard.
And THESE are the people who claim to be amazed at the eruptions of school
shootings, yet it is this very behavior - undoubtedly picked up and modeled
by their own children, which leads to just those eruptions of violence.
They are to be pitied.
Elfish Chimera
Dave Wood wrote:
>
> So Mr Elf it seems you have done a little work on
> what may be generically termed critical thinking.
> What is your definition of a fact?
Well Dave, that's a tough question.
It can only be answered within the framework of an agreed upon
epistemology.
Now what I'm considering the basic epistemological principles here are
those that at a minimum the orthodox Christian must accept in order for the
alleged historical nature of his religion/scriptures to make sense.
There is, according to this epistemology, an external reality which exists
outside the individual. The Christian considers this reality to have been
created by his God, but what is important is that this external reality,
the world, the universe, is objectively "out there", and the individual
exists inside and as a part of that reality.
This world also is, relative to the individual human, permanent and has
been here awhile. I.e., it has continuity - a history.
Christianity makes historical claims about what happened to particular
individual in the past, and presupposes that the world they lived in was
physically, not just similar to the world we find ourselves in -- but the
SAME world, simply earlier in time.
Thus we have a concrete world, existing externally to the individual which
he can perceive through his senses.
Further, he can reliably communicate to other persons about objects in
this world -- that is, after all, how s/he must first learn about his
savior god and what happened that MAKES him a savior god and why it was
NECESSARY for a savior.
This all presupposes a stable world, with a real history, and the ability
to communicate. At least if the Christian message is to mean anything.
So within that epistemological framework, one kind of 'fact' becomes the
aspects of that physical world which are open to personal physical
verification.
For example the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, the city of Jerusalem,
or the Christian scriptures.
The truths of logic are necessary truths, and hence a kind of abstract
fact about the world, as are numbers and mathematics.
Then there are inferential facts. The facts we infer about the world based
on the 'simple' observational facts such as canyons and falling apples and
such after we apply deductive and inductive reasoning to those facts.
And that will do for now.
Dave Wood
Actually there are five involved in the
discussion.
1. Stan
2. Stan
3. Stan
4. Stan
5. Stan
Oh, and I'm Dave
D.M. Bruyns
>
> Dave Wood wrote:
>
> > nobody is good.
> >
> > Unrepentant sinners are judged unto damnation.
> > Those saved, are saved from their just deserts -
> > damnation.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> {{{{{{{{{{{{ HELLOOO }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>
> {{{{{{ IS ANYBODY HOME? }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>
> {{{{{ WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?
> }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>
> Stan
They walked the earth?
MrsRat
It lists all the descendants of Adam and Eve all
the way to Jesus! "
I'll answer this one since Stan again changed his
loginname and got past our killfile. (He's readded
with the new one.)
It lists all the descendants that lead up to Jesus,
you are correct. Since Jesus was not a descendant
of Abraham the Dinosaur but instead Abraham the
man, the dinosaurs didn't make it into the Bible.
Now go away Stan and find somewhere else to play.
--
MrsRat
Admin XWorld IRC NetWork
http://sefl.satelnet.org/~brats/
D.M. Bruyns
>
> The hapless GoldRush knowing he's defeated makes a
> pathetic attempt at humor:
>
> > Well, we can't, because we have never heard of dinosaurs
> > having baby monkeys! Don't know a thing about that!
> >
> {{{{{{{ WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS? THEY SORTA BLOW
> YOUR BIBLE OUT OF THE WATER )))))))
>
> Stan
They do no such thing Stan, because:
1) all the dinos are as DEAD as dodos, and
2) evolutionary theories cannot disprove the truth of the Bible.
Even if evolutionists were to succeed in disproving the literalist
version of Creationism, they would not have disproved the truth of the
Biblical account.
Dead end street Stan. Scientists who managed to conclusively disprove
the theory
that the Book of Genesis is factual in every particular (which they've
not by any
means succeeded in doing, I'd say) would be men standing on a beach with
an ocean to cross and no ships to do it in. This is in fact their
position today.
All this picking at Holy Writ by atheists is mere feu d'artifice. The
Young Earth Creationist part of the line seems to certain scientists of
our times the weaker
section, yet despite their spirited assaults they still have not broken
even that.
The line's u n b r e a k a b l e, Stan. Our Lord, He whose divinity you
deny,
spoke thus to the Holy Apostle: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;
and upon
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it."(Mt. 16, 18). Watch the truth of it unfold. Manet
immota fides. Why not get back
in line? You'd be most welcome.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a couple of dinoburgers in the icebox I
want to
try, with some fava beans, and a nice Chianti.
Dex
D.M. Bruyns
>
> It's amusing how three different believers have
> managed to participate in this thread so far and
> completely avoid the subject matter: those pesky
> dinosaurs!
>
> Well, maybe tommorrow morning....?
>
> Stan
D.M. Bruyns
>
> Dave Wood wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Little fairies do not know about facts, or even
> > about genders,
> > > let alone about theologies.
> > >
> > > They only know how to flit, flurry, and troll .
> > . .never lighting,
> > > but going from here to there to here to there to
> > here to there . . .
> >
> > Please turn your PC volume down to read this
> > message - we are trying to keep this ~very~ quiet.
> >
> > Yes GoldRush, I was sort of aware of that. Just
> > hadn't bothered to articulate it as well as you
> > have.
> >
> > <Dave with elfish grin on face, silently goes back
> > to work>
>
> ROFLAO! Oh you two wags just kill me! Imagine
> that! making fun of gays by alluding to them as
> "fairies"! How friggin refreshingly creative of
> you two. Have you guys thought about taking your
> act on the road?
>
> BTW, which one of you buttheads is Beavis?
>
> Stan
produced those dinos.
D.M. Bruyns
D.M. Bruyns
>
> *Stan wrote:
>
> > It's amusing how three different believers have
> > managed to participate in this thread so far and
> > completely avoid the subject matter: those pesky
> > dinosaurs!
> >
> > Well, maybe tommorrow morning....?
> >
> > Stan
>
He's got you there, Stan! Knowing you as I do, I'm sure you will
graciously admit defeat.
>
> --
> GoldRush
>
> For Scriptures & Christian Studies
> visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
D.M. Bruyns
>
> *Stan wrote:
>
> The hapless GoldRush knowing he's defeated makes a
> pathetic attempt at humor:
>
> > Well, we can't, because we have never heard of dinosaurs
> > having baby monkeys! Don't know a thing about that!
> >
> {{{{{{{ WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS? THEY SORTA BLOW
> YOUR BIBLE OUT OF THE WATER )))))))
>
> Stan
>
And a monkey's uncle!
D.M. Bruyns
> > a gay. We just call a name by a name and "Elfish" means
> > "little" and "Chimera" means "fairy."
> >
> > (You know, like Tinkerbell, in Peter Pan?)
> >
> > You are the one who has a dirty mind and spirit! (But we will
> > let the wee spirit quiety deal with you, itself!)
> >
> > Psst . . .Tinkerbell . . .where are you, little one? Are you
> > reading this?
>
> The little minds play at calling names, blithely and unconsciously
> condemning themselves with pettiness, not to say simple stupidity..
>
> Bereft of arguments, they finally resort to the last resort of the small
> minded.
>
> Calling names like nasty little children in a school yard.
>
> And THESE are the people who claim to be amazed at the eruptions of school
> shootings, yet it is this very behavior - undoubtedly picked up and modeled
> by their own children, which leads to just those eruptions of violence.
>
> They are to be pitied.
Elfish, where's your sense of humour!
>
> ciao
>
> Elfish Chimera
By the way, 'Elfish Chimera' is an anagram of your name, no? I think you
said that once.
>
> --
> "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or
> deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt
> anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does
> harm."
> -- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
Hi your majesty.
D.M. Bruyns
>
> GoldRush wrote:
>
> > Who is Beavis? (We know a few "Buttheads!")
> >
> > GoldRush
>
> {{{ DINOSAURS BLOW THE BIBLE OUT OF THE WATER }}}}
>
> Stan
But artichokes reduce friction in Newark.
Dave Wood
> Which one of you five Stans is the man? Oh and
you still haven't
> produced those dinos.
Check the thread a little further down.
Sorry there is only one dinosaur.
Dave
Dave Wood
play.
But what are we gunna do for pinning the tail?
Dave
Ben Mitts
Why did you not just answer no to
Janies' question?
Ben Mitts
=========================================================
*Stan wrote:
>
> Janie wrote:
> >
> > Stan so eloquently asked:
> >
> > >> Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
> > >> lived millions of years ago?
> > >> Explanation please!
> >
> > Stan,
> > God made the whole thing?
>
> > Janie
> >
> But the bible does not leave any space for them!
> It lists all the descendants of Adam and Eve all
> the way to Jesus! (I might be a bit off here. I am
> open to correction.)
> So the bible leaves no time frame for them to have
> existed in!
>
> That's my point, Janie. As far as the bible is
> concerned they never existed.
> But they did.
>
> > Are you a Christian Stan or not?
>
> I don't think that most of the xians here would
> accept me as one of them.
> However, yes I do believe in a God who looks
> favorably on all good people regardless of their
> faith. He applies the same rules to everyone. He
> does not favor born agains.
>
> Stan
Ben Mitts
you write to Dave?), no matter, all the
Stans' Please answer as best you can!
"Ok, what about them dinosaurs that science says
lived millions of years ago?
Explanation please!"- said Stan/Stans.
"And which particular specie of dinosaur was the progenitor to
the ape that you descended from?- asked Dave?
Stan, you realize of course the whole Evolutionary world is
waiting with baited breath on your answer. If you answer in-
correctly The Theory of Evolution Fails miserably! Then of
course you might prove Dave's' statement that you, even though
showing schizophrenic tendencies are truly capable of logical
interpretation of any given subject!
"And where did you come from Dave? The stork?"- truly magni-
ficent statement Stan!
Dave came from the mother Stork. But then from what "progenitor
to the stork did he/we descend from, Stan!!?
Ben Mitts