PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!
Domino
<nothing, which is not surprising>
Prove he does.
ONEstar
Domino requested in earnest:
>Prove he does.
Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
or requested information.
ONE
Jessica M. Wolfman
>
>Domino requested in earnest:
>
>>Prove he does.
>
>Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
>You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
That's because that's his sex. That doesn't mean he exists. Santa has a sex. So
does Zeus and Thor and the Tooth Fairy. Do they exist? Well, since we refer to
Santa as being male, he must!
>Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>or requested information.
In most cases, though, the proof is available for anyone, regardless of their
personal feelings on the matter.
>ONE
>
>
Jessica Wolfman
"It's more fun to arrive at a conclusion
than to justify it."
--Macolm Forbes
The Adventurers Guild
http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
Crusa...@mailexcite.com
"ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>
> Domino requested in earnest:
>
> >Prove he does.
>
> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
> or requested information.
>
>
What about the one who does wish to see, and lives his or her life
accordingly, only to find out that they do not, in fact, see anything at all?
Or the one who discovers that religious faith implies blind faith in
something that may or may not be the truth? How do you know it is the truth?
Because somebody TOLD you it was? Or was it because you had some kind of
experience that was most easily explained by religion? If it was the former,
then I have a bridge to sell you :) (no offense intended). I am not agreeing,
nor disagreeing with your point of view. I am merely illustrating the other
side of the story.
Regards,
C.W.
--
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
-William Shakespeare
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman interjected:
>>Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>>who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>>or requested information.
>In most cases, though, the proof is available for anyone, regardless of
their
>personal feelings on the matter.
Availability, unfortunately, does not assure us of observance.
ONE
ONEstar
>What about the one who does wish to see, and lives his or her life
>accordingly, only to find out that they do not, in fact, see anything at
all?
> Or the one who discovers that religious faith implies blind faith in
>something that may or may not be the truth? How do you know it is the
truth?
> Because somebody TOLD you it was? Or was it because you had some kind of
>experience that was most easily explained by religion? If it was the
former,
>then I have a bridge to sell you :) (no offense intended). I am not
agreeing,
>nor disagreeing with your point of view. I am merely illustrating the
other
>side of the story.
While I am quite sure there are those about who desire to see the proof but
do not discover it, I am equally assured they have set filters which will
not permit said proof to penetrate through to the windows of the spirit.
One may only discover the truth when one first knows who they are and
realizes their connectivity to all things. There may be different words
used to relate the accomplishment and multiple levels of having done so,
however the means is rewarded by the end.
ONE
Jessica M. Wolfman
But it does mean that it's there in case anyone wants to see it. With the case
of a god, though, only people who believe in that god can detect it. People who
believe in different gods detect those gods, not the one you believe in. And
when you stop believing in that god, you stop detecting it.
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman wrote:
>>>>Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>>>>who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>>>>or requested information.
>>>In most cases, though, the proof is available for anyone, regardless of
>>their personal feelings on the matter.
>>Availability, unfortunately, does not assure us of observance.
>But it does mean that it's there in case anyone wants to see it. With the
case
>of a god, though, only people who believe in that god can detect it. People
who
>believe in different gods detect those gods, not the one you believe in.
And
>when you stop believing in that god, you stop detecting it.
What makes you believe the assertion you offer us? Perhaps you have
detected this pattern and thus believe it to be so. So too, do those who
recognize the patterns they have seen.
ONE
Jessica M. Wolfman
Experience has told me that people who were life-long believers have usually
felt that they've always experienced a god, but I've yet to see a
believer-turned-atheist who continues to experience a god after deconverting. I,
as a life-long atheist, have never experienced a god.
Nicholas Buenk
something doesn't, when possible
ONEstar <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote in message
news:Hod92.14944$Sf1.7...@news3.mia...
>
>Domino requested in earnest:
>
>>Prove he does.
>
>Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
>You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
>who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>or requested information.
>
>
>
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman wrote in :
>>>>>>Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>>>>>>who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>>>>>>or requested information.
>>>>>In most cases, though, the proof is available for anyone, regardless of
>>>>their personal feelings on the matter.
>>>>Availability, unfortunately, does not assure us of observance.
>>>But it does mean that it's there in case anyone wants to see it. With the
>>case of a god, though, only people who believe in that god can detect it.
People
>>who believe in different gods detect those gods, not the one you believe
in.
>>>And when you stop believing in that god, you stop detecting it.
>>What makes you believe the assertion you offer us? Perhaps you have
>>detected this pattern and thus believe it to be so. So too, do those who
>>recognize the patterns they have seen.
>Experience has told me that people who were life-long believers have
usually
>felt that they've always experienced a god, but I've yet to see a
>believer-turned-atheist who continues to experience a god after
deconverting. I,
>as a life-long atheist, have never experienced a god.
Experience is the pattern I spoke of. The erecting of walls of dis-belief
seems sufficient to disengage any sensation one might have felt as regards
the spirit realm. It does not surprise me that you have never experienced
what you will not allow yourself to.
ONE
Jessica M. Wolfman
>Experience is the pattern I spoke of. The erecting of walls of dis-belief
>seems sufficient to disengage any sensation one might have felt as regards
>the spirit realm. It does not surprise me that you have never experienced
>what you will not allow yourself to.
>
>ONE
If the evidence is there, it can be seen. It doesn't matter if the person
*wants* to see it or not.
Even though I never really believed in god, I only knew I was an atheist from
about the age of 11 or so on, and only a strong atheist recently. Seems like
your god had plenty of time to show himself.
march_of...@my-dejanews.com
"ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Prove he does.
>
> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
> or requested information.
>
>
>
Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly well
that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's merely
a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits, demons, ad
nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.
--
FAQ: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ANIMAL ABUSER
AND OJ SIMPSON? ANSWER-----NONE.
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman replied:
>>Experience is the pattern I spoke of. The erecting of walls of dis-belief
>>seems sufficient to disengage any sensation one might have felt as regards
>>the spirit realm. It does not surprise me that you have never experienced
>>what you will not allow yourself to.
>If the evidence is there, it can be seen. It doesn't matter if the person
>*wants* to see it or not.
Do not be misled, the desire to filter possible evidence and dismiss
subjective data can be a most powerful persausion.
>Even though I never really believed in god, I only knew I was an atheist
from
>about the age of 11 or so on, and only a strong atheist recently. Seems
like
>your god had plenty of time to show himself.
If he were in fact mine to command, then I would not command he show himself
to you for that is contrary to the reasoning he himself has set forth. You
seem to misunderstand the point that it is -belief- (faith) in the face of
no objective evidence he searches for in the hearts of men. Also, it is by
this means that he is discovered.
ONE
ONEstar
march-of-crimes18 responded with:
>> >Prove he does.
>> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
>> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
>> Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>> or requested information.
>Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly well
>that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's
merely
>a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits, demons,
ad
>nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.
In the matter of clarification we must discern the difference between the
first borne son, Yeshua (popularly called Jesus by English speaking people)
and the creator (known by the tetragrammeton YHWH). Yeshua was known to be
of the male gender and thus is properly referred to as a -he-. Men often
refer to the creator as a -he- due to the heritage from Jewish custom
however there is no indication of either gender. I suspect we continue the
practice in tradition.
When one refuses to acknowledge anything, one often attributes data
resulting from that something to some other thing. I suspect this is amply
true as applied to yourself.
ONE
march_of...@my-dejanews.com
Live with it, love it, be thankful for it.
--
FAQ: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ANIMAL ABUSER, the POPE, PAT ROBERTSON
genein
Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
> Experience has told me that people who were life-long believers have
usually
> felt that they've always experienced a god, but I've yet to see a
> believer-turned-atheist who continues to experience a god after
deconverting. I,
> as a life-long atheist, have never experienced a god.
experience has taught me not to generalize from a few facts picked up at
random...i have known and know now, many who experience a "something"
which some call god, others a feeling of expectation, still others roll
over and go back to sleep....i suggest all are at some level of
understanding, who is higher or who is lower cannot be determined perhaps
we should act on all levels....
a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
g.
Jessica Wolfman
>
> "It's more fun to arrive at a conclusion
> than to justify it."
> --Macolm Forbes
malcom forbes had a sense of humor and often said things apropos of
nothing...he knew how to make money however....
Jessica M. Wolfman
>
>
>Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
>
>> Experience has told me that people who were life-long believers have
>usually
>> felt that they've always experienced a god, but I've yet to see a
>> believer-turned-atheist who continues to experience a god after
>deconverting. I,
>> as a life-long atheist, have never experienced a god.
>
>experience has taught me not to generalize from a few facts picked up at
>random...i have known and know now, many who experience a "something"
>which some call god, others a feeling of expectation, still others roll
>over and go back to sleep....i suggest all are at some level of
>understanding, who is higher or who is lower cannot be determined perhaps
>we should act on all levels....
>
>a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
>possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
I've looked at lots of different religions. I haven't seen any reason to believe
in a god, although I often thought that if I were to start believing in one I'd
be a wiccan, 'coz they're cool.
>g.
>
>
> Jessica Wolfman
>>
>> "It's more fun to arrive at a conclusion
>> than to justify it."
>> --Macolm Forbes
>
>malcom forbes had a sense of humor and often said things apropos of
>nothing...he knew how to make money however....
>
Jessica Wolfman
"It's more fun to arrive at a conclusion
than to justify it."
--Macolm Forbes
The Adventurers Guild
Jessica M. Wolfman
>
>Jessica M. Wolfman replied:
>>>Experience is the pattern I spoke of. The erecting of walls of dis-belief
>>>seems sufficient to disengage any sensation one might have felt as regards
>>>the spirit realm. It does not surprise me that you have never experienced
>>>what you will not allow yourself to.
>
>
>
>>If the evidence is there, it can be seen. It doesn't matter if the person
>>*wants* to see it or not.
>
>
>Do not be misled, the desire to filter possible evidence and dismiss
>subjective data can be a most powerful persausion.
But again, if the evidence is there. So far the only evidence I've ever seen has
been totally indistinguishable from any natural occurance. The god of the bible
did all these miracles. Why not have them happen today. Why not have, say, all
the stars in the sky spell out the word YHWH or something like that? So far any
"miracles" have been "well, my mom had cancer but she prayed and in went away."
>>Even though I never really believed in god, I only knew I was an atheist
>from
>>about the age of 11 or so on, and only a strong atheist recently. Seems
>like
>>your god had plenty of time to show himself.
>
>If he were in fact mine to command, then I would not command he show himself
>to you for that is contrary to the reasoning he himself has set forth. You
>seem to misunderstand the point that it is -belief- (faith) in the face of
>no objective evidence he searches for in the hearts of men. Also, it is by
>this means that he is discovered.
But it also requires people to be stupid and ignore fact in favor of wishful
thinking.
>ONE
Nemo
<gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
>
> > Experience has told me that people who were life-long believers have
> usually
> > felt that they've always experienced a god, but I've yet to see a
> > believer-turned-atheist who continues to experience a god after
> deconverting. I,
> > as a life-long atheist, have never experienced a god.
>
> experience has taught me not to generalize from a few facts picked up at
> random...i have known and know now, many who experience a "something"
> which some call god, others a feeling of expectation, still others roll
> over and go back to sleep....i suggest all are at some level of
> understanding, who is higher or who is lower cannot be determined perhaps
> we should act on all levels....
>
> a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
> possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
> g.
>
I'm a former xian. I used to believe that God spoke to me by planting
thoughts in my mind, giving me the answers to prayed questions, speaking
to me in special dreams and guiding me to read the bible verses I required
for my spiritual growth.
Just this morning, I had that familiar experience of an answer popping
into my head a half-hour after I thought of the question - however, it was
an answer that supported atheism. I don't expect *GAWD!* had anything to
do with it, though.
**************************************************
It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand
that bothers me - it's the parts that I do understand-
Mark Twain
**************************************************
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman wrote in reply:
>>>>Experience is the pattern I spoke of. The erecting of walls of
dis-belief
>>>>seems sufficient to disengage any sensation one might have felt as
regards
>>>>the spirit realm. It does not surprise me that you have never
experienced
>>>>what you will not allow yourself to.
>>>If the evidence is there, it can be seen. It doesn't matter if the person
>>>*wants* to see it or not.
>>Do not be misled, the desire to filter possible evidence and dismiss
>>subjective data can be a most powerful persausion.
>But again, if the evidence is there. So far the only evidence I've ever
seen has
>been totally indistinguishable from any natural occurance. The god of the
bible
>did all these miracles. Why not have them happen today. Why not have, say,
all
>the stars in the sky spell out the word YHWH or something like that? So far
any
>"miracles" have been "well, my mom had cancer but she prayed and in went
away."
The evidence that is often -required- is of an objective nature, which is
not in accord with the subjective experience. It is easy to believe and no
faith is needed when presented with objective evidence clearly presented.
It becomes more a challenge and more the matter by design when one must
conclude based upon the
-inner- knowledge of the heart.
>>>Even though I never really believed in god, I only knew I was an atheist
>>from about the age of 11 or so on, and only a strong atheist recently.
Seems
>>like your god had plenty of time to show himself.
>>If he were in fact mine to command, then I would not command he show
himself
>>to you for that is contrary to the reasoning he himself has set forth.
You
>>seem to misunderstand the point that it is -belief- (faith) in the face of
>>no objective evidence he searches for in the hearts of men. Also, it is
by
>>this means that he is discovered.
>But it also requires people to be stupid and ignore fact in favor of
wishful
>thinking.
I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
ONE
ONEstar
Don M. requested:
>[snip]
>>But again, if the evidence is there. So far the only evidence I've ever
seen has
>>been totally indistinguishable from any natural occurance. The god of the
bible
>>did all these miracles. Why not have them happen today. Why not have, say,
all
>>the stars in the sky spell out the word YHWH or something like that? So
far any
>>"miracles" have been "well, my mom had cancer but she prayed and in went
away."
>Or better yet, why doesn't this god speak up in such a fashion that
>everyone in the world hears him (her? it?) at the same time, each in
>his/her own language, and make it understandably clear exactly what he
>wants from us. After all, this god is allegedly omnipotent, so such a
>"miracle" would be no problem to accomplish.
Questions such as this fascinate me as they appear, on the surface, to be of
genuine concern and to represent a legitimate need for knowledge. The
answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind is
given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
>This would solve the problem once and for all with regard to the "one,
>true, religion." The 20,000+ [allegedly Christian] denominations could
>combine into one, "true" Church.
As well as I can discern throughout historical reference, religion is an
answer to a question never posed. Mankind has taken all aspects of the
personal and intimate relationship one could establish, and transformed it
into a -herd- activity. I have never approved of this.
>I say that for this allegedly perfect, loving, omnipotent, omniscient
>god to act as if he were mute is reprehensible and downright immoral.
I might suggest in response, that the one with ears open will surely hear
and the one that does not wish to hear will not.
ONE
ONEstar
march-of-crimes18 responded with:
>> >> >Prove he does.
>Mr ONE: *You* have been acknowledged. "Yeshua" WAS NOT AN HISTORICAL
FIGURE.
>Live with it, love it, be thankful for it.
Allow me to express my appreciation for your acknowledgement,
however -history- disagrees with you and you must live with that. Whether
you love it or not, or are thankful for it or not, is truly up to you.
ONE
Ben Johnson
>
> march-of-crimes18 responded with:
>
> >> >Prove he does.
>
> >> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
> >> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
> >> Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
> >> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
> >> or requested information.
>
> >Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly well
> >that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's
> merely
> >a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits, demons,
> ad
> >nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.
>
> In the matter of clarification we must discern the difference between the
> first borne son, Yeshua (popularly called Jesus by English speaking people)
> and the creator (known by the tetragrammeton YHWH). Yeshua was known to be
> of the male gender and thus is properly referred to as a -he-. Men often
> refer to the creator as a -he- due to the heritage from Jewish custom
> however there is no indication of either gender. I suspect we continue the
> practice in tradition.
What 'tradition'?
Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
likeness;"
A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you literally
interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>
> When one refuses to acknowledge anything, one often attributes data
> resulting from that something to some other thing. I suspect this is amply
> true as applied to yourself.
>
> ONE
--
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth."
-Lillian Hellman
Remove NOSPAM to reply by email
genein
Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
<3669578e...@news.comm-plus.net>...
> >a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
> >possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
>
> I've looked at lots of different religions. I haven't seen any reason to
believe
> in a god, although I often thought that if I were to start believing in
one I'd
> be a wiccan, 'coz they're cool.
"cools" a good a reason as any....i suppose....but may i be sceptical of
your "i've looked at lots of different religions"?....please pardon but it
takes a long time to look and digest what one has read...but being a witch
does have its moments.....easy to digest and as you said "is cool".
> >g.
> > Jessica Wolfman
genein
Nemo <ne...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<nemo-05129...@111.greensboro-06-07rs.nc.dial-access.att.net>...
> In article <01be2056$00e2ea60$LocalHost@default>, "genein"
> <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
> > possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
> > g.
> >
>
> I'm a former xian. I used to believe that God spoke to me by planting
> thoughts in my mind, giving me the answers to prayed questions, speaking
> to me in special dreams and guiding me to read the bible verses I
required
> for my spiritual growth.
as a former christian as well...i drifted out of it slowly and
logically...but have no dislike of these people who are my friends,
doctor, teacher etc....and have found the bible has much to offer to all
peoples as does the "dhammapada" and other great writings of the past.
> Just this morning, I had that familiar experience of an answer popping
> into my head a half-hour after I thought of the question - however, it
was
> an answer that supported atheism. I don't expect *GAWD!* had anything to
> do with it, though.
could be.....and only this morning? can you share this revelation? since i
still have found no support for god or a no-god.....appreciate it.
g.
Nemo
<gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Nemo <ne...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
> > Just this morning, I had that familiar experience of an answer popping
> > into my head a half-hour after I thought of the question - however, it
> was
> > an answer that supported atheism. I don't expect *GAWD!* had anything to
> > do with it, though.
>
> could be.....and only this morning? can you share this revelation? since i
> still have found no support for god or a no-god.....appreciate it.
>
> g.
I used to call it revelation. Now I refer to this sort of event as an
answer popping off the back burner of my mind. I'm used to it happening,
but since I decided to move to deism, I haven't payed much attention. Just
last week, I made the final move away from any sort of religion.
But anyway, as to this morning, I had been pondering off and on for some
time about a debate I had with a christian friend. He'd leared of my
heresy (I had told him about it in connection to a moral delimma (sic?) I
was facing), and he wanted so bad to tell me what he could to bring me
back into the fold.
He said that he couldn't imagine someone who was *truly* a christian
preferring to leave it. He had experienced God personally. So I asked him
to tell me about it. He gave me his whole flippin' life story, and told me
that God talked to him. It's the old "I have a personal relationship with
God" deal. I just had no idea how to get his attention away from this
"talking to God" business. That was a couple of weeks ago.
This morning, the thought flashed into my mind at breakfast. I had never
heard this guy tell me of any questions he had asked God when they talked.
I sould have asked him "did you get any I.D from this supernatural being
you were in communication with?" "How do you know you're talking with
Jesus, and not Allah?" After all, this guy had been brought up practically
with a bible in his cradle, from what I can tell.
Well, that's it. Not spectacular, but the point is that my mind functioned
the same way before I left the faith as after. The only difference is that
my basic programming has changed. When I left *GAWD!* (this is how I refer
to the god of xians) behind, I left nothing of myself. I find THAT part
absolutely fascinating.
Sam Morrissey
> The answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind is
> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
OK. So you say faith is desired. Faith, for me, is defined as
believing in the unknown. However, I feel that the main problem with
faith is that you never know. You never truly know what the deal is
until you die, and no one knows what happens then. Really.
Before I go on, let me clear up the concept of "knowing":
I define "knowing" as personally experiencing something with my own mind
and body. SO therefore, the only things I can truly know are things
that I have personally experienced.
So faith is belief in the unknown. Belief that somone or something has
a plan for you. That someone of something is "better" than you, that
they/it is a greater being than you.
I think this serves as a great misrepresentation of the concept of
existence in the human percieved universe. I think that calling any
beings "greater" or "lesser" is a mistake. All beings/entities simply
exist. I know this. I also know that for optimal existence, or a
perfect life for me, I would have to coexist with all entities I
percieve in my percieved existence. Dig?
I mean, I can't believe because I just don't know. And why should I
bother with trying to learn the unkown. If I can't know something, why
bother? ALl I know is that I exist, and all I want to do is exist.
I believe in 2 theories:
CONSERVATION OF MASS & CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: Matter and energy can
neither be created nor destroyed.
So by that, I am everything in the universe, and I will continue to be
everything in the universe, indefinetly. We are all part of the same
jumble of matter and energy we call this universe. We are all equal.
There is nothing better or worse.
Death is a continuation of the existence of this matter and energy that
makes up me. WHen I die, my matter and energy will not be transported
to this place called heaven or hell. It will continue to exist in the
universe.
After this huge tangent, I have to close with my final statement:
Even though I am not a devout Christian, I am familiar with the Bible.
I will address the Genesis chapter, specifically dealing with Adam and
Eve. Here's what I get from the story of their life in the Garden of
Eden:
Adam and Eve simply existed in the garden of Eden. 2 humans coexisting
with everything else in a perfect world. No clothes, no society, no
work, no money, no nreligion, no nothing. The concept of the Bible is
that God told them not to do one small thing. I take this to mean they
were meant to live peacefully and happily in the world provided for
them, and that they were not to get greedy for more, because they had
everything. But, they did get greedy for more. They wanted something
they didn't need, and this destroyed the perfect coexistence of the
Garden.
So I'm saying this: If humans realize what they need to be happy and
live perfect lives, they would realize that all humans need the same
things to be happy, and that's it. We could actually live in peace and
harmony, no matter how many people try to say different.
SAM
Jessica M. Wolfman
>
>
>Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in article
><3669578e...@news.comm-plus.net>...
>> >a life-long atheist?......you have never considered any other
>> >possibility?...and i say this to life-long believers as well....
>>
>> I've looked at lots of different religions. I haven't seen any reason to
>believe
>> in a god, although I often thought that if I were to start believing in
>one I'd
>> be a wiccan, 'coz they're cool.
>
>"cools" a good a reason as any....i suppose....but may i be sceptical of
>your "i've looked at lots of different religions"?....please pardon but it
>takes a long time to look and digest what one has read...but being a witch
>does have its moments.....easy to digest and as you said "is cool".
You see, I don't see any reason to believe in a god. And even if there was one,
so what? Why should I worship it? If it's the kind of god that smites people for
not kowtowing, then I would feel it immoral to worship and praise it. If it
didn't, then why bother? Nobody is so great that they deserve that kind of
worship.
But, of course, it all goes back to "why should I believe that a god actually
exists in the first place?" I see no reason to think that they're any different
from elves and dragons and river sprites.
>> >g.
>
>
>> > Jessica Wolfman
Jessica M. Wolfman
>
>Jessica M. Wolfman wrote in reply:
<snip>
>The evidence that is often -required- is of an objective nature, which is
>not in accord with the subjective experience. It is easy to believe and no
>faith is needed when presented with objective evidence clearly presented.
>It becomes more a challenge and more the matter by design when one must
>conclude based upon the
>-inner- knowledge of the heart.
Right. So what? Does your god want people to believe in him, and if so, why does
he insist that people do so only on the basis of a warm fuzzy?
<snip>
>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
We should have faith in the warm fuzzy that tells us that god exists, even
though there is no evidence for his existance? Why? Because god likes people to
obey him blindly? And is this the same warm fuzzy that that tells me it's OK to
eat another slice of chocolate cake? You know, that "inner knowledge of the
heart" that says "yes!" even when there is no reason to do so and it is often
detrimental?
>ONE
David Mittelman
>He said that he couldn't imagine someone who was *truly* a christian
>preferring to leave it.
This is the case with many Christians. They feel that there way is the right
way. That's one you join them you will see the light and never want to
leave. Kinda like those potato chip commericals were they promise that you
can't have just one chip--you'll be hooked.
Maybe that's why they go around trying to convert the everyone in the world.
>Well, that's it. Not spectacular, but the point is that my mind functioned
>the same way before I left the faith as after. The only difference is that
>my basic programming has changed. When I left *GAWD!* (this is how I refer
>to the god of xians) behind, I left nothing of myself. I find THAT part
>absolutely fascinating.
I don't. From a religious prospective, leaving God does not neccesarily mean
that God leaves you to. Maybe He is still giving you a hand. The only thing
that has changed is that you no longer credit Him.
Afterall, if you decide to abandon gravity, I doubt it will abandon you. But
you could just as well say that you are causing yourself to stay on the
ground (instead of gravity).
David Mittelman
>What 'tradition'?
>
>Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>likeness;"
>
>A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you literally
>interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
Not really. The bible did not say "physical image". Its is entirely possible
that we were created in God's spiritual image. This part of us would be the
soul. So unlike the flood comment which is concrete, the stuff about man in
God's image is left up to interpretation.
pesh...@gte.net
Image, when not specific, refers to a physical description. Within the
context of the verse, it is quite obvious. But of course I understand that
you are forced to 'interpret' it differently because it is fashinable to do
so of late.
--
Ben Johnson
*** To email me remove NOSPAM from my email address ***
Nemo
<dav...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
So *GAWD* gave me a thought to use against one of his followers? You know,
that makes sense, viewed in a biblical light. Kind of like when Elisha
cursed the kids who were calling him "baldy," *GAWD* was ready with bears
to tear them apart. Nice guy, huh?
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
aeronaut
>ONEstar wrote:
>
>> The answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind is
>> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
>
>OK. So you say faith is desired. Faith, for me, is defined as
>believing in the unknown. However, I feel that the main problem with
>faith is that you never know. You never truly know what the deal is
>until you die, and no one knows what happens then. Really.
It's probably more accurate to say that faith is believing in the
unproven or unproveable since it is possible to have some evidence
which supports a belief without having conclusive proof.
>I believe in 2 theories:
> CONSERVATION OF MASS & CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: Matter and energy can
>neither be created nor destroyed.
>
>So by that, I am everything in the universe, and I will continue to be
>everything in the universe, indefinetly. We are all part of the same
>jumble of matter and energy we call this universe. We are all equal.
>There is nothing better or worse.
Actually by your own reasoning you can really only conclude that the
matter of your physical body will continue on. Indefinitetly is
debatable. I'm not sure how you can know that the 'I' you refer to is
the same as the matter of your body or might be something additional.
I think that would take understanding what life is a lot better than
what science can tell us so far.
>Even though I am not a devout Christian, I am familiar with the Bible.
>I will address the Genesis chapter, specifically dealing with Adam and
>Eve. Here's what I get from the story of their life in the Garden of
>Eden:
>
> Adam and Eve simply existed in the garden of Eden. 2 humans coexisting
>with everything else in a perfect world. No clothes, no society, no
>work, no money, no nreligion, no nothing. The concept of the Bible is
>that God told them not to do one small thing. I take this to mean they
>were meant to live peacefully and happily in the world provided for
>them, and that they were not to get greedy for more, because they had
>everything. But, they did get greedy for more. They wanted something
>they didn't need, and this destroyed the perfect coexistence of the
>Garden.
Well, I think they were meant to do a little more than 'simply' exist
in a perfect world. According to my reading of Genesis God had a
purpose for them but needed to test them first which is what spiritual
faith is about in part. From that time on and to this very day it
seems he's been testing people.
>So I'm saying this: If humans realize what they need to be happy and
>live perfect lives, they would realize that all humans need the same
>things to be happy, and that's it. We could actually live in peace and
>harmony, no matter how many people try to say different.
>
>SAM
Genesis indicates the first humans lost their perfection and so
imperfection has been passed on. If this is true, no amount of time
or effort will allow humans, by themselves, to duplicate Eden.
genein
Nemo <jeh...@worldnet.att.NOSPAM.net> wrote in article
<jehdjh-0612...@24.atlanta-04.ga.dial-access.att.net>...
> In article <01be2117$115685c0$LocalHost@default>, "genein"
> <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Nemo <ne...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
>
> > > Just this morning, I had that familiar experience of an answer
popping
> > > into my head a half-hour after I thought of the question - however,
it
> > was
> > > an answer that supported atheism. I don't expect *GAWD!* had
anything to
> > > do with it, though.
> >
> > could be.....and only this morning? can you share this revelation?
since i
> > still have found no support for god or a no-god.....appreciate it.
> >
> > g.
>
> I used to call it revelation. Now I refer to this sort of event as an
> answer popping off the back burner of my mind. I'm used to it happening,
> but since I decided to move to deism, I haven't payed much attention.
Just
> last week, I made the final move away from any sort of religion.
and so you now believe that there was a god that created the universe and
then abandoned it? (diesm)....but why would this "god" abandon earth and
what is the nature of this god?
> He said that he couldn't imagine someone who was *truly* a christian
> preferring to leave it. He had experienced God personally. So I asked
him
> to tell me about it. He gave me his whole flippin' life story, and told
me
> that God talked to him. It's the old "I have a personal relationship
with
> God" deal. I just had no idea how to get his attention away from this
> "talking to God" business. That was a couple of weeks ago.
yes there are those.....
The only difference is that
> my basic programming has changed.
in what way?
g.
> Mark Twain
mark twain as you know did attend church but was rather hard on ministers
and the self rightious and the type of folks you mentioned......my
favorite quote of his:
"i believe our heavenly father invented man because he was disapponted in
the monkey"
Crusa...@mailexcite.com
"ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>
>
> march-of-crimes18 responded with:
>
> >> >Prove he does.
>
> >> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
> >> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
> >> Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
> >> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
> >> or requested information.
>
> >Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly well
> >that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's
> merely
> >a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits, demons,
> ad
> >nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.
>
> In the matter of clarification we must discern the difference between the
> first borne son, Yeshua (popularly called Jesus by English speaking people)
> and the creator (known by the tetragrammeton YHWH). Yeshua was known to be
> of the male gender and thus is properly referred to as a -he-. Men often
> refer to the creator as a -he- due to the heritage from Jewish custom
> however there is no indication of either gender. I suspect we continue the
> practice in tradition.
>
> resulting from that something to some other thing. I suspect this is amply
> true as applied to yourself.
>
> ONE
>
Quite an interesting argument that we have here. You are challenging all to
prove the existence of God via the internet? I can do just as much to
disprove the existence of god on the net, as you can to prove god on the net.
I am not an atheist, I am not a theist. I am merely a spiritual person. I
cannot subscribe to any religion, because I have not found one yet that I can
prove or disprove completely. None of us really can, and if we can't do that
in reality, what makes you think you, or anyone else can do it over the net?
There is one more question I have. Assuming that there is a higher power,
how do you know that it is the God which you envision? Because of an ancient
book that you read? If that is the case, there are other, older books out
there that deal with entirely different religions. Is it because someone
told you so? I would certainly hope not. Is it because you had an
experience that you cannot explain? I think I asked you these questions
before, and you never really answered me.
Regards,
C.W.
--
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
-William Shakespeare
David Mittelman
>So *GAWD* gave me a thought to use against one of his followers?
Sure. God would not want to limit our thought processes because that would
deny us free will
>You know,
>that makes sense, viewed in a biblical light. Kind of like when Elisha
>cursed the kids who were calling him "baldy," *GAWD* was ready with bears
>to tear them apart. Nice guy, huh?
I am not standing up for God.....
David Mittelman
>> >interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>>
>> Not really. The bible did not say "physical image". Its is entirely
possible
>> that we were created in God's spiritual image. This part of us would be
the
>> soul. So unlike the flood comment which is concrete, the stuff about man
in
>> God's image is left up to interpretation.
>>
>>
>Image, when not specific, refers to a physical description. Within the
>context of the verse, it is quite obvious. But of course I understand that
>you are forced to 'interpret' it differently because it is fashinable to do
>so of late.
>
Did you make this rule up? Or did someone tell you that the word 'image'
refers to physical things unless otherwise specified?
Sam Morrissey
> It's probably more accurate to say that faith is believing in the
> unproven or unproveable since it is possible to have some evidence
> which supports a belief without having conclusive proof.
>
But what I was saying is that this unknown element, this unprovable,
leaves that element of fear or doubt in the persons mind. I do not want
to base my life around something that is not concrete, something
unprovable. What is the point? When you can accept what you know as
"what you know", then you do not need to believe in anything that can't
be proven. It seems like a waste of time for me to believe in something
that you will truly never "know" for sure. I see so many people trying
to get a better life. SOme of them use religion, by saying that there
is something better waiting for them. But they never truly know! And
there will always be room to doubt. Romm to doubt leads to room to be
scared, and if you're scared, you sure as hell can't be completely
happy!
> >I believe in 2 theories:
> > CONSERVATION OF MASS & CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: Matter and energy can
> >neither be created nor destroyed.
> >
> >So by that, I am everything in the universe, and I will continue to be
> >everything in the universe, indefinetly. We are all part of the same
> >jumble of matter and energy we call this universe. We are all equal.
> >There is nothing better or worse.
>
> Actually by your own reasoning you can really only conclude that the
> matter of your physical body will continue on. Indefinitetly is
> debatable. I'm not sure how you can know that the 'I' you refer to is
> the same as the matter of your body or might be something additional.
> I think that would take understanding what life is a lot better than
> what science can tell us so far.
By my own reasoning, I can conclude what only I can percieve. I can
tell you that I am thinking and cogniscient. That is all. I can't tell
you if I'm making up everything else in my mind. I can't tell you if
I'm actually a drop of water floating in space. All I can say is that I
percieve an existence in a world consisting of other entities. SO no, I
can't be sure that my body is the same one I percieve. However, like I
said before, I percieve a body as my own.
SO, like I was saying, conservation of matter and energy makes sense to
me. It works for my percieved world. Therefore, I take it as concrete,
proven. There is no room for me to doubt those theories, and it is
therefore something concrete to base my life on. In my perception, I
beleive that all the matter and energy I percieve is perpetual.
Thereore, I am not just saying that the matter and energy that
constitutes me will last forever, but everything that I percieve. And
that's what I think is so great about this concept. I feel perfectly at
ease knowing that all matter and energy will continue on forever. It
brings me great joy to have no room to doubt. I don't need to base
these ideas on something that is not concrete to me, because
conservation of matter and energy is provable. Like I said before, I
think it would be a waste of time to believe in something that can't be
proven, since everything is available for me to personally "know".
>>SNIP- GARDEN OF EDEN STUFF
That was just what I got out of reading Genesis. You're perfectly
entitled to your own opinion. However, my reading supports my
knowledge, and it simply acts as more evidence to support my claim. Of
course, since many people could develop their own meanings, I wouldn't
say it's universal support. In closing, I have to reiterate that all I
can possibly know is my own perception. I will never know anything else
but my perception. The theories I know to be true are known to me
because they have been proven in my perception. Therefore, I have no
"unknown" factor in what I know. I could say, in a sense, that I know
everything. Or, I could more accurately state that I don't know
anything. If I take that as true, what do I have to worry about?
SAM
Eric Gunnerson
>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
Cultivate faith?
Of what possible use is faith?
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to this
question from a theist.
pesh...@gte.net
If I told you I made a mud pie in the image of a dog, what do you think the
mud pie would look like?
Like I said, unless it is stated otherwise, the logical expectation is that
of a physical image. Unless of course you don't want to literally interpret
that passage. But then why would you interpret the flood as literal?
Here's a trick, if you keep reading the verse over and over forgetting logic,
new meanings will emerge.
--
Ben Johnson
*** To email me remove NOSPAM from my email address ***
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
David A. Rodwell
Faith is a psychological crutch; an answer to our (human) existential
dilemma. Its use - socially - is power; there is power in collective
faith.
bfe...@ibm.net
>
> Eric Gunnerson asks:
>
> >>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
> >>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
> >>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
> >>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
> >>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>
> >Cultivate faith?
> >Of what possible use is faith?
> >I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to
> this
> >question from a theist.
>
> who acquires it with abilities beyond the normal in a manner that is
> beneficial. A working example is when the disciples employed their faith to
> dispel sickness among the masses.
>
> ONE
Any more recent, or more honestly documented examples?
I thought not.
ONEstar
aeronaut responded:
>>> The answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind
is
>>> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
>>OK. So you say faith is desired. Faith, for me, is defined as
>>believing in the unknown. However, I feel that the main problem with
>>faith is that you never know. You never truly know what the deal is
>>until you die, and no one knows what happens then. Really.
The definition of the word seems to be skewed a bit in your response from
what the original root indicated. The ancient Hebrew race inferred that
faith was the assured expectation of things hoped for. While to those
without faith, these words seem to contradict themselves, the fact remains
that to the ones who acquire faith the assurance seemes to outweigh the
unknown.
>It's probably more accurate to say that faith is believing in the
>unproven or unproveable since it is possible to have some evidence
>which supports a belief without having conclusive proof.
Accuracy is more dependent upon the individual and each specific instance
of -faith-. The individual's own acquired level of faith is a variable such
that outside controversy, which is general in nature, does not actually
accomplish anything.
>>I believe in 2 theories:
>> CONSERVATION OF MASS & CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: Matter and energy can
neither be created nor destroyed.
>>So by that, I am everything in the universe, and I will continue to be
>>everything in the universe, indefinetly. We are all part of the same
>>jumble of matter and energy we call this universe. We are all equal.
>>There is nothing better or worse.
Both the things you believe in react in predictable methods to any number of
a set of stimulii. Tell me please, since you believe in these things and
observe them in objective fashion, what has made them react in the fashion
you observe? Or.... Do you feel that question has no relevance in your
belief?
>Actually by your own reasoning you can really only conclude that the
>matter of your physical body will continue on. Indefinitetly is
>debatable. I'm not sure how you can know that the 'I' you refer to is
>the same as the matter of your body or might be something additional.
>I think that would take understanding what life is a lot better than
>what science can tell us so far.
I agree with this thought as the -psyche- is as individual as fingerprints
and a composite of far more than accumulated experience.
>>Even though I am not a devout Christian, I am familiar with the Bible.
>>I will address the Genesis chapter, specifically dealing with Adam and
>>Eve. Here's what I get from the story of their life in the Garden of
>>Eden:
>> Adam and Eve simply existed in the garden of Eden. 2 humans coexisting
>>with everything else in a perfect world. No clothes, no society, no
>>work, no money, no nreligion, no nothing. The concept of the Bible is
>>that God told them not to do one small thing. I take this to mean they
>>were meant to live peacefully and happily in the world provided for
>>them, and that they were not to get greedy for more, because they had
>>everything. But, they did get greedy for more. They wanted something
>>they didn't need, and this destroyed the perfect coexistence of the
>>Garden.
That is indeed the manner of the beginning that the story relates with the
exception they were give the task to subdue the earth. According to the
Genesis account, the women desired to be like the Creator.
>Well, I think they were meant to do a little more than 'simply' exist
>in a perfect world. According to my reading of Genesis God had a
>purpose for them but needed to test them first which is what spiritual
>faith is about in part. From that time on and to this very day it
>seems he's been testing people.
>>So I'm saying this: If humans realize what they need to be happy and
>>live perfect lives, they would realize that all humans need the same
>>things to be happy, and that's it. We could actually live in peace and
>>harmony, no matter how many people try to say different.
>Genesis indicates the first humans lost their perfection and so
>imperfection has been passed on. If this is true, no amount of time
>or effort will allow humans, by themselves, to duplicate Eden.
According to the general translation of the accepted canon, the theme is the
kingdom. The amount of time that has transpired is to allow the entire
universe observe that mankind was not withheld something fine in the
forbidden fruit of knowledge and his subsequent rebellion was a separation
from the kingdom. Eventually the kingdom will be re-established when
sufficient time has transpired to insure no entity can say, that a full
chance for mankind to rule himself wisely was not offered.
ONE
ONEstar
Jessica M. Wolfman questioned:
><snip>
>>The evidence that is often -required- is of an objective nature, which is
>>not in accord with the subjective experience. It is easy to believe and
no
>>faith is needed when presented with objective evidence clearly presented.
>>It becomes more a challenge and more the matter by design when one must
>>conclude based upon the
>>-inner- knowledge of the heart.
>Right. So what? Does your god want people to believe in him, and if so, why
does he insist that people do so only on the basis of a warm fuzzy?
The creator of all things wants the creation to reach it's full potential,
just as you might desire for your offspring (if any) to achieve their full
measure. I suspect the
-warm fuzzy- you speak of merely words used in place of -spiritual
discernment- which some recognize as the chief cornestone of existence.
><snip>
>>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
>>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
>>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
>>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>We should have faith in the warm fuzzy that tells us that god exists, even
>though there is no evidence for his existance? Why? Because god likes
people to obey him blindly? And is this the same warm fuzzy that that tells
me it's OK to
>eat another slice of chocolate cake? You know, that "inner knowledge of the
>heart" that says "yes!" even when there is no reason to do so and it is
often
>detrimental?
Blind is the viewpoint of one who fails to recognize the spiritual composite
of their own nature. If one compares chocolate cake to creation, then you
are welcome to have as many as you wish, and with little more wisdom than
one had before the partaking. The heart is indeed more treacherous than
anything and few know it.
ONE
ONEstar
Eric Gunnerson asks:
>>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant among
>>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one could
>>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
>>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
ONEstar
David A. responds:
>> >I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>> >stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant
among
>> >the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one
could
>> >maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
>> >eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>> Cultivate faith?
>> Of what possible use is faith?
>> I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to
this
>> question from a theist.
>Faith is a psychological crutch; an answer to our (human) existential
>dilemma. Its use - socially - is power; there is power in collective
>faith.
Faith may indeed be an answer, however I find it to be no crutch. Social
herding and combined objective does not require faith to resemble power.
ONE
ONEstar
Ben Johnson wrote in message
>> >> >Prove he does.
>> >> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
>> >> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
>> >> Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
>> >> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
>> >> or requested information.
>> >Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly
well
>> >that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's
>> merely a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits,
demons, ad nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.>
>> In the matter of clarification we must discern the difference between the
>> first borne son, Yeshua (popularly called Jesus by English speaking
people)
>> and the creator (known by the tetragrammeton YHWH). Yeshua was known to
be of the male gender and thus is properly referred to as a -he-. Men
often
>> refer to the creator as a -he- due to the heritage from Jewish custom
>> however there is no indication of either gender. I suspect we continue
the
>> practice in tradition.
>What 'tradition'?
>Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
literally
>interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
ONEstar
peshitta Wrote:
>> >What 'tradition'?
>> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>> >likeness;"
>> >A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you literally
>> >interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>> Not really. The bible did not say "physical image". Its is entirely
possible
>> that we were created in God's spiritual image. This part of us would be
the
>> soul. So unlike the flood comment which is concrete, the stuff about man
in
>> God's image is left up to interpretation.
>Image, when not specific, refers to a physical description. Within the
>context of the verse, it is quite obvious. But of course I understand that
>you are forced to 'interpret' it differently because it is fashinable to do
>so of late.
Images, refer also to reflections, (yes even spiritual) which unlike -graven
images- are not physical in nature. I find the previous interpretation -in
line- with the available data.
ONE
ONEstar
bfelton retorts:
>> >>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
>> >>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant
among
>> >>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one
could
>> >>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping
one's
>> >>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>> >Cultivate faith?
>> >Of what possible use is faith?
>> >I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to
>> this question from a theist.
>> Faith to a theist is like -chi- to a martial scientist. I imbues the one
>> who acquires it with abilities beyond the normal in a manner that is
>> beneficial. A working example is when the disciples employed their faith
to
>> dispel sickness among the masses.
>Any more recent, or more honestly documented examples?
>I thought not.
I am sure there are several, though not as well documented. Today, the
hearts of men are clothed in a shadow of the faith that once was a large
mantle and documentation has come to mean objective reporting which does not
fare well in subjective instances.
ONE
pesh...@gte.net
Images refer to reflections of spirituallity when it is needed to support your
perspective.
pesh...@gte.net
"ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Johnson wrote in message
> >> >> >Prove he does.
>
> >> >> Why should I when your referral does it quite well?
> >> >> You not only refer to the creator but assign him gender.
> >> >> Proof belongs to the one who observes it and the one
> >> >> who does not wish to see seldom acquires the needed
> >> >> or requested information.
>
> >> >Well, Mr.ONE, what u r is a somewhat erudite sophist; u know perfectly
> well
> >> >that when 'referring' to THE LORD JEEZIZ FEIST, we will say "he." It's
> >> merely a matter of clarification. THERE ARE NO gods, godessess, spirits,
> demons, ad nauseum. You know it; we know it. Leave it at that. Amen.>
>
> >> In the matter of clarification we must discern the difference between the
> >> first borne son, Yeshua (popularly called Jesus by English speaking
> people)
> >> and the creator (known by the tetragrammeton YHWH). Yeshua was known to
> be of the male gender and thus is properly referred to as a -he-. Men
> often
> >> refer to the creator as a -he- due to the heritage from Jewish custom
> >> however there is no indication of either gender. I suspect we continue
> the
> >> practice in tradition.
>
> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
> literally
> >interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>
Where does it say that? In the concordance?
Ben Johnson
>
> >> When one refuses to acknowledge anything, one often attributes data
> >> resulting from that something to some other thing. I suspect this is
> amply
> >> true as applied to yourself.
>
> ONE
>
>
--
ONEstar
Crusader004 offers:
>Quite an interesting argument that we have here. You are challenging all
to
>prove the existence of God via the internet? I can do just as much to
>disprove the existence of god on the net, as you can to prove god on the
net.
>I am not an atheist, I am not a theist. I am merely a spiritual person. I
>cannot subscribe to any religion, because I have not found one yet that I
can
>prove or disprove completely. None of us really can, and if we can't do
that
>in reality, what makes you think you, or anyone else can do it over the
net?
>There is one more question I have. Assuming that there is a higher power,
>how do you know that it is the God which you envision? Because of an
ancient
>book that you read? If that is the case, there are other, older books out
>there that deal with entirely different religions. Is it because someone
>told you so? I would certainly hope not. Is it because you had an
>experience that you cannot explain? I think I asked you these questions
>before, and you never really answered me.
The net is merely another form of interaction and by itself is no means of
proof or disproof. Your own relationship (or lack of one) is the
foundation, upon which, one builds.
You seem to think there were several gods in the past one may confuse with
the creator. I feel that the differences should be obvious if one has
trained his spiritual vision in discernment. You ask what has made men
believe in a higher power and then answer with another question and offer
alternatives. i.e.: ancient books, other people, unexplained experience.
You ask these questions of me directly and although I could answer you in
volumes such that bandwidth would suffer, I choose to answer succinctly in a
single phrase. All indications are that the universe and mankind are the
product of intelligent design.
ONE
David A. Rodwell
>
> David A. responds:
>
> >> >I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
> >> >stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant
> among
> >> >the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one
> could
> >> >maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping one's
> >> >eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>
>
> >> Cultivate faith?
> >> Of what possible use is faith?
> >> I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to
> this
> >> question from a theist.
>
>
> >Faith is a psychological crutch; an answer to our (human) existential
> >dilemma. Its use - socially - is power; there is power in collective
> >faith.
>
>
> Faith may indeed be an answer, however I find it to be no crutch. Social
> herding and combined objective does not require faith to resemble power.
>
> ONE
>
>
>
>
Well One, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. Faith doesn't
resemble power - it is power. Whether it is "faith" in government,
religion, or in a friend, faith empowers individuals and groups - that is
objective fact.
Crusa...@mailexcite.com
You are mistaken, my friend. I am not answering anything. How can I? I
don't have any answers, only questions. Yes, I am questioning what makes men
and women believe in a higher power-why do they believe the way that they
do?. Yes, I am questioning the nature of said higher power, due to the
enormous amount of beliefs that have existed, and still exist today. Don't
get me wrong, I am not attacking you, and I am not saying that you are right
or wrong. I am questioning you. There is a difference.
Regards,
C.W.
--
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
-William Shakespeare
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Chuck Hoebler
ONEstar wrote:
> >Any more recent, or more honestly documented examples?
> >I thought not.
>
> I am sure there are several, though not as well documented. *(Translation:
> there is no evidence)* Today, the hearts of men are clothed in a shadow of the
> faith that once was a large
> mantle *(Translation: people are generally more enlightened now than when they
> were coerced into believing Christian doctrine)* and documentation has come to
> mean objective reporting which does not fare well in subjective instances.
> *(Translation: people are not all so unsophistocated as to believe incredible
> stories without proof)*
>
> ONE
I hope it's not a breach of usenet etiquette to insert translations. I apologize
if so. But this type of vague rhetoric is one reason so many are duped.
ONEstar
David A. Rodwell wrote in
<snip>
>> >Faith is a psychological crutch; an answer to our (human) existential
>> >dilemma. Its use - socially - is power; there is power in collective
>> >faith.
>> Faith may indeed be an answer, however I find it to be no crutch. Social
>> herding and combined objective does not require faith to resemble power.
>Well One, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. Faith doesn't
>resemble power - it is power. Whether it is "faith" in government,
>religion, or in a friend, faith empowers individuals and groups - that is
>objective fact.
While faith may indeed be powerful, it is not the faith in itself that is
the power. It is more the conviction and determination that is embedded in
the individuals resolve to demonstrate said faith. In your previous
response you indicated how faith is power in a social entrainment and while
I agree to an extent, a group may wield influence and power with no faith
at all. Still, I find faith to be no crutch.
ONE
ONEstar
Chuck Hoebler attempted to translate:
>> >Any more recent, or more honestly documented examples?
>> >I thought not.
>> I am sure there are several, though not as well documented.
*(Translation:
>> there is no evidence)* Today, the hearts of men are clothed in a shadow
of the
>> faith that once was a large mantle *(Translation: people are generally
more enlightened now than when they were coerced into believing Christian
doctrine)* and documentation has come to mean objective reporting which
does not fare well in subjective instances. (Translation: people are not all
so unsophistocated as to believe incredible stories without proof)*
>I hope it's not a breach of usenet etiquette to insert translations. I
apologize
>if so. But this type of vague rhetoric is one reason so many are duped.
*(Translation: I might be able to get away with this type of misdirection
if few people object. I will apologize if I am caught. This type of
translation might suit the ones who I have seen in response previously so I
think I will be agreed with)*
<smile> Chuck, I found your translations quite humourous however I suspect
you are not recompensed well for the effort and your particular slant
somewhat biased.
ONE
ONEstar
peshitta
>Images refer to reflections of spirituallity when it is needed to support
your
>perspective.
I suspect the definition is supports either perspective, although your
personal interpretation may be as biased as you assert others are.
ONE
ONEstar
peshitta :
>> >What 'tradition'?
>> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
>> literally interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>> The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
>Where does it say that? In the concordance?
No, in the plural use of the word and the fact that not just one man was
made, but women also such that the command to become fruitful and subdue the
earth could be accomplished.
ONE
ONEstar
Crusader004
>You are mistaken, my friend. I am not answering anything. How can I? I
>don't have any answers, only questions. Yes, I am questioning what makes
men
>and women believe in a higher power-why do they believe the way that they
>do?. Yes, I am questioning the nature of said higher power, due to the
>enormous amount of beliefs that have existed, and still exist today. Don't
>get me wrong, I am not attacking you, and I am not saying that you are
right
>or wrong. I am questioning you. There is a difference.
Ahhh I see, then please accept my apology in my interpretation of the
alternatives you state immediately after your questions. No doubt you have
confused others in this same method. I do not think anyone can -get you
wrong-, however I do not think many will get you right. Your question was
answered although I noted no acknowledgement.
ONE
Ben Johnson
Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
that doesn't displace the initial description.
If God intended a literal reading of the Bible, then he would have made
clear your claim of 'spirituallity' or whatever just as he did the
flood. Why so cryptic when obviously it could be avoided?
I await in earnest your literal explanation.
--
Ben Johnson
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth."
-Lillian Hellman
Remove NOSPAM to reply by email
Ben Johnson
True. So to determine the reality of the situation, ultimately we must
look to the source. The Bible. We can use logic or illogic to help
arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
aeronaut
>ONEstar wrote:
>> peshitta :
>>
>> >> >What 'tradition'?
>> >> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>> >> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
>> >> literally interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>>
>> >> The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
>>
>> >Where does it say that? In the concordance?
>>
>> No, in the plural use of the word and the fact that not just one man was
>> made, but women also such that the command to become fruitful and subdue the
>> earth could be accomplished.
>>
>> ONE
>
>Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
>image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
>talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
>Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
>that doesn't displace the initial description.
If I could add an opinion: you seem to be focusing on one statement
in the bible regarding God's appearance and its relationship to man.
In fact as you say there are many statements about God's appearance
(not just spiritual) throughout the bible which indicate he is not
physically like man. Thus image in the initial description must refer
to something else other than physical. Perhaps like when we refer to
a person's public image, we are not necessarily referring to his
physical appearance.
Ben Johnson
Wrong. These other passages may discuss the nature of God's
relationship with man in the spiritual sense but they say nothing of a
physical description.
I believe the only passages that deals with a hint of whether God is a
man or women lies in Genesis 1:26-27. Image is used several times in
the OT and used in the physical sense. You can read what you want into
it, but it stands to reason that the writer of Genesis intended it to be
of a physical description.
ONEstar
Ben Johnson wrote
>> I suspect the definition is supports either perspective, although your
>> personal interpretation may be as biased as you assert others are.
>True. So to determine the reality of the situation, ultimately we must
>look to the source. The Bible. We can use logic or illogic to help
>arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
The reality defies logic such that the conclusion remains nebulous although
I suspect if we use the Word, the conclusion shall lean more toward mankind,
than a single man.
ONE
ONEstar
Ben Johnson
>> >> >What 'tradition'?
>> >> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>> >> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
>> >> literally interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a
man.
>> >> The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
>> >Where does it say that? In the concordance?
>> No, in the plural use of the word and the fact that not just one man was
>> made, but women also such that the command to become fruitful and subdue
the earth could be accomplished.
>Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
>image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
>talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
>Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
>that doesn't displace the initial description.
I could draw that conclusion as you have, but then I recognize the Creator
as a spirit being and thus realize he has no body to make an image of which
leaves the obvious alternative.
>If God intended a literal reading of the Bible, then he would have made
>clear your claim of 'spirituallity' or whatever just as he did the
>flood. Why so cryptic when obviously it could be avoided?
>I await in earnest your literal explanation.
I have found, that the Word was written in a manner which is -timeless-.
This must be the case if even torch-burning fanatics were to find truth in
it for more than a single century. What you regard as cryptic may merely be
the manner it needed to be written in to retain relative perspective.
ONE
bfe...@ibm.net
>
> Don M. requested:
> >[snip]
>
> >>But again, if the evidence is there. So far the only evidence I've ever
> seen has
> >>been totally indistinguishable from any natural occurance. The god of the
> bible
> >>did all these miracles. Why not have them happen today. Why not have, say,
> all
> >>the stars in the sky spell out the word YHWH or something like that? So
> far any
> >>"miracles" have been "well, my mom had cancer but she prayed and in went
> away."
>
> >Or better yet, why doesn't this god speak up in such a fashion that
> >everyone in the world hears him (her? it?) at the same time, each in
> >his/her own language, and make it understandably clear exactly what he
> >wants from us. After all, this god is allegedly omnipotent, so such a
> >"miracle" would be no problem to accomplish.
>
> Questions such as this fascinate me as they appear, on the surface, to be of
> genuine concern and to represent a legitimate need for knowledge. The
> answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind is
> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
Which naturally avoids the key question -- how do you KNOW this to be
true?
How can you demonstrate it to be true? Do you simply assert it
and insist that since you "know" it to be true, it must be?
Or is it completely circular, "I have faith that faith is necessary, so
there"?
Bill
Ben Johnson
So then explain to me how the issue of slavery is written to retain
relative perpective.
Ben Johnson
That nasty subjective nature of man which yields so much truth.
David A. Rodwell
> at all. Still, I find faith to be no crutch.
>
> ONE
>
>
>
>
You are missing the point. The influence and power wieled by the group is
a result of the faith one has in the group. We (humans) are engaged in a
social process. Therefore, while individuals my be the origin of faith -
it is in something social that their faith is based upon.
Unless you are a solopsist I don't see how you are going to get around the
fact that knowledge of any sort is a group process.
Ben Johnson
>
> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >aeronaut wrote:
> >> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> >ONEstar wrote:
> >> >> peshitta :
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
> >> >> >> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
> >> >> >> literally interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Where does it say that? In the concordance?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, in the plural use of the word and the fact that not just one man was
> >> >> made, but women also such that the command to become fruitful and subdue the
> >> >> earth could be accomplished.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
> >> >image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
> >> >talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
> >> >Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
> >> >that doesn't displace the initial description.
> >>
> >> in the bible regarding God's appearance and its relationship to man.
> >> In fact as you say there are many statements about God's appearance
> >> (not just spiritual) throughout the bible which indicate he is not
> >> physically like man. Thus image in the initial description must refer
> >> to something else other than physical. Perhaps like when we refer to
> >> a person's public image, we are not necessarily referring to his
> >> physical appearance.
> >
> >Wrong. These other passages may discuss the nature of God's
> >relationship with man in the spiritual sense but they say nothing of a
> >physical description.
> >I believe the only passages that deals with a hint of whether God is a
> >man or women lies in Genesis 1:26-27. Image is used several times in
> >the OT and used in the physical sense. You can read what you want into
> >it, but it stands to reason that the writer of Genesis intended it to be
> >of a physical description.
> >
> >--
> >Ben Johnson
>
> God is a spirit and not flesh (John 4:24,2Co 3:17). Or when it
> mentions that you can't see him and live (Exodus 33:20).
Which version of the Bible are you reading?
NIV John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit
and in turth."
NIV 2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is spirit, and where the spirit of the
Lord is, there is freedom."
Which version of the Bible are you using that says, "not flesh"?
Consider also that the NT is a reworking of the OT so it stands to
reason that the early Christians probably changed a lot of what was held
by the Jews. But you still haven't presented anything here that
indicates in no uncertain terms that God isn't of a physical being.
NIV Exodus 33:20 "But", he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one
may see me and live."
Now, that seems to indicate that God has a face. Isn't that a physical
description? You can try to take the position that 'you cannot see my
face' implies that he has no face, but that is dispelled by the fact
that the very next sentence states 'for no one may see me and live'
which explains the previous sentence in that he is referring to a face
that actually exists.
If you are going to quote from your own Bible, please read it first.
Ben Johnson
--
aeronaut
ONEstar
bfelton contends:
Ahhh, the age old question once more surfaces. There is no absolute
knowledge so I must discern your demand is for the knowledge that is
relative. Each of us acquire knowledge in our own way, such that we have a
base of understanding how each thing relates. One may acquire objectively
and think himself wise in that, another may lean more toward the subjective
experience and think himself as wise. My own method is a combination of
both where the relative knowledge is a projection (faith?) of the patterns
established by recognition. How do you KNOW anything?
ONE
ONEstar
David A. Rodwell
>> <snip>
>> >> >Faith is a psychological crutch; an answer to our (human) existential
>> >> >dilemma. Its use - socially - is power; there is power in collective
>> >> >faith.
>> >> Faith may indeed be an answer, however I find it to be no crutch.
Social
>> >> herding and combined objective does not require faith to resemble
power.
>> >Well One, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. Faith
doesn't
>> >resemble power - it is power. Whether it is "faith" in government,
>> >religion, or in a friend, faith empowers individuals and groups - that
is
>> >objective fact.
>> While faith may indeed be powerful, it is not the faith in itself that is
>> the power. It is more the conviction and determination that is embedded
in
>> the individuals resolve to demonstrate said faith. In your previous
>> response you indicated how faith is power in a social entrainment and
while
>> I agree to an extent, a group may wield influence and power with no
faith
>> at all. Still, I find faith to be no crutch.
>You are missing the point. The influence and power wieled by the group is
>a result of the faith one has in the group. We (humans) are engaged in a
>social process. Therefore, while individuals my be the origin of faith -
>it is in something social that their faith is based upon.
>Unless you are a solopsist I don't see how you are going to get around the
>fact that knowledge of any sort is a group process.
Strength in numbers is a known and requires no faith at all, thus I suspect
you mis-apply the word. I have been accused of solipsism previously,
however while I recognize that part of that theory applies to us all, we are
all part of everything we touch. For example, as you read this posting and
as I have read yours we are both changed because of it, one more one less
perhaps, but changed none the less.
ONE
ONEstar
Ben Johnson
<snip>
>> >Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
>> >image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
>> >talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
>> >Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
>> >that doesn't displace the initial description.
I could draw that conclusion as you have, but then I recognize the Creator
as a spirit being and thus realize he has no body to make an image of, which
leaves the obvious alternative.
>> >If God intended a literal reading of the Bible, then he would have made
>> >clear your claim of 'spirituallity' or whatever just as he did the
>> >flood. Why so cryptic when obviously it could be avoided?
>> >I await in earnest your literal explanation.
>> I have found, that the Word was written in a manner which is -timeless-.
>> This must be the case if even torch-burning fanatics were to find truth
in
>> it for more than a single century. What you regard as cryptic may merely
be
>> the manner it needed to be written in to retain relative perspective.
>So then explain to me how the issue of slavery is written to retain
>relative perpective.
I am unsure to which period where -slavery- existed you are referring to.
By ancient standards, any person currently employed by another is a slave
and his boss a master.
ONE
bfe...@ibm.net
>
> bfelton contends:
Only a bit of what is quoted below, specifically marked.
> >> >[snip]
> >
> >> >>But again, if the evidence is there. So far the only evidence I've ever
> >> seen has been totally indistinguishable from any natural occurance. The
> god of the bible did all these miracles. Why not have them happen today.
> Why not have, say, all the stars in the sky spell out the word YHWH or
> something like that? So
> >> far any "miracles" have been "well, my mom had cancer but she prayed and
> in went away." Or better yet, why doesn't this god speak up in such a
> fashion that
> >> >everyone in the world hears him (her? it?) at the same time, each in
> >> >his/her own language, and make it understandably clear exactly what he
> >> >wants from us. After all, this god is allegedly omnipotent, so such a
> >> >"miracle" would be no problem to accomplish.
>
> >> Questions such as this fascinate me as they appear, on the surface, to be
> of
> >> genuine concern and to represent a legitimate need for knowledge. The
> >> answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind is
> >> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
>
bfelton > >Which naturally avoids the key question -- how do you KNOW
this to be
bfelton > >true? How can you demonstrate it to be true? Do you simply
assert it
bfelton > >and insist that since you "know" it to be true, it must be?
bfelton > >Or is it completely circular, "I have faith that faith is
necessary, so
bfelton > >there"?
>
> Ahhh, the age old question once more surfaces. There is no absolute
> knowledge
Do you know this absolutely?
>so I must discern your demand is for the knowledge that is
> relative. Each of us acquire knowledge in our own way, such that we have a
> base of understanding how each thing relates.
What is knowledge?
> One may acquire objectively
What is "objective"?
> and think himself wise in that, another may lean more toward the subjective
> experience and think himself as wise. My own method is a combination of
> both where the relative knowledge is a projection (faith?) of the patterns
> established by recognition. How do you KNOW anything?
By thinking, a method you ought to try.
More precisely, my knowledge of my own awareness is assured.
My awareness is of "objects", ie, 'contents' of consciousness
[without any existence claims pro or con].
From there, all else can be reached. [see Husserl, Ingarden,
Merleau-Ponty, Scheler, Schutz, Gurwitsch, etc]
Bill
David A. Rodwell
Ahh... I suspected as much. You are attaching some sort of mystic notion
to faith - in which case a dialectic is futile. You concede there is
"strength in numbers"... so where do you think that strength comes from?
It's not about strength in numbers though. We have faith in our inductive
hypotheses - e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow. You seem to be taking the
view that faith is something more than that. Thus, I think it is you who
mis-apply the word.
bfe...@ibm.net
>
> bfelton retorts:
WRONG!
None of the remarks below, down to the (self inserted) attributions is
mine.
Honestly, some people's quoting skills...
> >> >>I have discerned that the people you refer too, have no monopoly on
> >> >>stupidity and that to the same extent wishful thinking runs rampant
> among
> >> >>the masses. It would seem wiser to me to find a method whereby one
> could
> >> >>maintain belief and cultivate faith while at the same time keeping
> one's
> >> >>eyes wide open to those things we know in objective truth.
>
> >> >Cultivate faith?
> >> >Of what possible use is faith?
> >> >I'm not trying to be flippant, but I've never gotten a decent answer to
> >> this question from a theist.
>
> >> Faith to a theist is like -chi- to a martial scientist. I imbues the one
> >> who acquires it with abilities beyond the normal in a manner that is
> >> beneficial. A working example is when the disciples employed their faith
> to
> >> dispel sickness among the masses.
>
bfelton said:> >Any more recent, or more honestly documented examples?
bfelton said:> >I thought not.
>
> I am sure there are several, though not as well documented. Today, the
> hearts of men are clothed in a shadow of the faith that once was a large
> mantle and documentation has come to mean objective reporting which does not
> fare well in subjective instances.
Interestingly enough, the entire set of remarks to which the sole two
lines
of quote attributable to me are addressed do not appear in your reply.
Why would that be, I wonder?
I strongly suspect dishonesty, mr onestar. Or at least massive
carelessness.
Care to clarify which it is?
Bill
pesh...@gte.net
"ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Johnson
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
> >> >image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
> >> >talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
> >> >Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
> >> >that doesn't displace the initial description.
>
> I could draw that conclusion as you have, but then I recognize the Creator
> as a spirit being and thus realize he has no body to make an image of, which
> leaves the obvious alternative.
Which is a pretty convenient thing to be able to do in today's politically
correct enviornment.
>
> >> >If God intended a literal reading of the Bible, then he would have made
> >> >clear your claim of 'spirituallity' or whatever just as he did the
> >> >flood. Why so cryptic when obviously it could be avoided?
> >> >I await in earnest your literal explanation.
>
> >> I have found, that the Word was written in a manner which is -timeless-.
> >> This must be the case if even torch-burning fanatics were to find truth
> in
> >> it for more than a single century. What you regard as cryptic may merely
> be
> >> the manner it needed to be written in to retain relative perspective.
>
> >So then explain to me how the issue of slavery is written to retain
> >relative perpective.
>
> I am unsure to which period where -slavery- existed you are referring to.
> By ancient standards, any person currently employed by another is a slave
> and his boss a master.
>
> ONE
"Employed"? Nice touch. Except employed didn't mean the same thing it does
today.
The fact is those 'employed' had no freedom. They were chattel.
If slavery is inherently wrong today, then why was not it inherently wrong in
ancient times? As it relates to God's physical nature, you posit that the
verse I quoted perhaps was ambiguous in order to retain relative perspective.
I ask again, where is the relative perspective in slavery? It is quite
clear. This a god that condones slavery.
--
Ben Johnson
*** To email me remove NOSPAM from my email address ***
aeronaut
>aeronaut wrote:
>> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >aeronaut wrote:
>> >> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >> >ONEstar wrote:
>> >> >> peshitta :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >What 'tradition'?
>> >> >> >> >Gen 1:26 "Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
>> >> >> >> >likeness;" A literal reading of this, as you must accept since you
>> >> >> >> literally interpret the flood and the resurrection, yields God as a man.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The word -man- used in this case refers to mankind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Where does it say that? In the concordance?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, in the plural use of the word and the fact that not just one man was
>> >> >> made, but women also such that the command to become fruitful and subdue the
>> >> >> earth could be accomplished.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ONE
>> >> >
>> >> >Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in "it's"
>> >> >image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like he's
>> >> >talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in the
>> >> >Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God but
>> >> >that doesn't displace the initial description.
>> >>
>> >> If I could add an opinion: you seem to be focusing on one statement
>> >> in the bible regarding God's appearance and its relationship to man.
>> >> In fact as you say there are many statements about God's appearance
>> >> (not just spiritual) throughout the bible which indicate he is not
>> >> physically like man. Thus image in the initial description must refer
>> >> to something else other than physical. Perhaps like when we refer to
>> >> a person's public image, we are not necessarily referring to his
>> >> physical appearance.
>> >
>> >Wrong. These other passages may discuss the nature of God's
>> >relationship with man in the spiritual sense but they say nothing of a
>> >physical description.
>> >I believe the only passages that deals with a hint of whether God is a
>> >man or women lies in Genesis 1:26-27. Image is used several times in
>> >the OT and used in the physical sense. You can read what you want into
>> >it, but it stands to reason that the writer of Genesis intended it to be
>> >of a physical description.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Ben Johnson
>>
>> I'm not sure what I could be reading into the bible when it says that
>> God is a spirit and not flesh (John 4:24,2Co 3:17). Or when it
>> mentions that you can't see him and live (Exodus 33:20).
>
>Which version of the Bible are you reading?
>
>NIV John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit
>and in turth."
>
>NIV 2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is spirit, and where the spirit of the
>Lord is, there is freedom."
KJV and NWT both include an 'a' but that's not really the point. You
can't have it both ways. It seems to me you were just arguing that
the bible should be taken literally.
>Which version of the Bible are you using that says, "not flesh"?
>Consider also that the NT is a reworking of the OT so it stands to
>reason that the early Christians probably changed a lot of what was held
>by the Jews. But you still haven't presented anything here that
>indicates in no uncertain terms that God isn't of a physical being.
I would think that the word 'spirit' means 'not flesh'.
Since you used the word 'bible' I assumed you meant both the OT and NT
so that's where I took my passages from. In the OT there are
references of God manifesting himself in the physical forms of cloud
and fire, but then humans obviously don't have that physical
appearance.
>NIV Exodus 33:20 "But", he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one
>may see me and live."
>
>Now, that seems to indicate that God has a face. Isn't that a physical
>description? You can try to take the position that 'you cannot see my
>face' implies that he has no face, but that is dispelled by the fact
>that the very next sentence states 'for no one may see me and live'
>which explains the previous sentence in that he is referring to a face
>that actually exists.
>
>If you are going to quote from your own Bible, please read it first.
>
>Ben Johnson
In the bible God also speaks of his arms, eyes and ears but by the
same logic, if he is a spirit being then he is using the terms in an
anthropomorphic manner so that humans can understand him.
ONEstar
bfelton thinks that he contends:
>Only a bit of what is quoted below, specifically marked.
[snip]
>> >> Questions such as this fascinate me as they appear, on the surface, to
be
>> of genuine concern and to represent a legitimate need for knowledge.
The
>> >> answer is that faith is the desired aspect in mankind and if mankind
is
>> >> given adequate proof, what need is there for faith?
>bfelton > >Which naturally avoids the key question -- how do you KNOW
>this to be
>bfelton > >true? How can you demonstrate it to be true? Do you simply
>assert it
>bfelton > >and insist that since you "know" it to be true, it must be?
>bfelton > >Or is it completely circular, "I have faith that faith is
>necessary, so
>bfelton > >there"?
>> Ahhh, the age old question once more surfaces. There is no absolute
>> knowledge
>Do you know this absolutely?
Yes, as in, as absolutely as is possible by human mentality.
>>so I must discern your demand is for the knowledge that is
>> relative. Each of us acquire knowledge in our own way, such that we
have a
>> base of understanding how each thing relates.
>What is knowledge?
That which is known. (or appears known <smile>)
>> One may acquire objectively
>What is "objective"?
The concrete and measured item in scrutiny. (in this case)
>> and think himself wise in that, another may lean more toward the
subjective
>> experience and think himself as wise. My own method is a combination of
>> both where the relative knowledge is a projection (faith?) of the
patterns
>> established by recognition. How do you KNOW anything?
>By thinking, a method you ought to try.
>More precisely, my knowledge of my own awareness is assured.
>My awareness is of "objects", ie, 'contents' of consciousness
>[without any existence claims pro or con].
>From there, all else can be reached. [see Husserl, Ingarden,
>Merleau-Ponty, Scheler, Schutz, Gurwitsch, etc]
If I acquire and adopt the thoughts of this cloud of witnesses, then of what
need will I have of thinking. It would appear that you seem to allow them
to do it for you. <smile>
ONE
Timothy Jones
That's easy. God does not exist (as defined in the Jeudeau,
Islamic, and Christian religions, as well as all others that describe a
perfect being, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent),
because time and the universe do exist. *If* such a god existed, there
would be no reason for any "lagtime" between the initial conditions of
reality and whatever endstate god wants there to be. Hence the ultimate
flaw in any alanogy to "this life" as any kind of "test" or "proving
ground." Or to any sort of "grand scheme" or ultimate plan. If god
existed, being omnipotent, there should be not a single moment in time
in which any of the above "playes out," since god would, by definition,
be able, aware of being able, and desire to, simply will it to be so,
and in effectively zero time (and no suffering or waste), to cause the
endstate to be reality. Come to that, god would simply *be* or represent
that endstate, since "possessing all of the perfections" entails
psychological perfection, so god would have no needs or wants, and so,
would not bother with any "plans" or "schemes" or "grand designes,"
meant to perfect reality. No desire to do so, or any other desire at all
for that matter, can be fealt, else god would be l"less" before it was
done and "more" afterword, which entails being less than perfect at some
point, or able to be improved at some point, which amounts to the same
thing. So gad cannot "act" on pain of having a need or desire, and
therefore, being "incomplete" at the very least before said need or
desire is addressed. If a perfect, omni-fill-in-the-blank god existed,
nothing else would...especially not time, and doubally-so not lagtime.
to say nothing of suffering. {And of course, this argument applies on
all levels of perception, since suffering would be unnecessary, and
therefore constitute an imperfection, so one cannot resort to the
analogy of our 1,000 years to god's blink of an eye, or any other
notions of perceptual relativism.}
It's ironic then, when I hear lines like "Only god can make a tree,"
when it's really nature and evolution that do it, or rebukes like "What
do you mean what evidence do I have that god exists?! Look around you.
The whole world is proof that god exists." In point of fact, the whole
world is proof god does *not* exist. Every particle of matter. Every
instance of suffering. And every moment of time.
God, by definition, would have to be unmoving and unmoved.
TJ
Ben Johnson
All of it should because the flood and resurrection are taken
literally. When your start taking one thing literally and not another,
contradictions appear.
Not that the Bible needs any help.
>
> >Which version of the Bible are you using that says, "not flesh"?
> >Consider also that the NT is a reworking of the OT so it stands to
> >reason that the early Christians probably changed a lot of what was held
> >by the Jews. But you still haven't presented anything here that
> >indicates in no uncertain terms that God isn't of a physical being.
>
> I would think that the word 'spirit' means 'not flesh'.
So, when it doesn't serve your purpose you don't interject double
meanings. Please explain why God condoned, even instructed the Jews to
take slaves.
>
> Since you used the word 'bible' I assumed you meant both the OT and NT
> so that's where I took my passages from. In the OT there are
> references of God manifesting himself in the physical forms of cloud
> and fire, but then humans obviously don't have that physical
> appearance.
You're forgetting the verse you quoted below and one one I quoted where
he made man in the image of himself. Both are physical forms of man.
>
> >NIV Exodus 33:20 "But", he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one
> >may see me and live."
> >
> >Now, that seems to indicate that God has a face. Isn't that a physical
> >description? You can try to take the position that 'you cannot see my
> >face' implies that he has no face, but that is dispelled by the fact
> >that the very next sentence states 'for no one may see me and live'
> >which explains the previous sentence in that he is referring to a face
> >that actually exists.
> >
> >If you are going to quote from your own Bible, please read it first.
> >
> >Ben Johnson
>
> In the bible God also speaks of his arms, eyes and ears but by the
> same logic, if he is a spirit being then he is using the terms in an
> anthropomorphic manner so that humans can understand him.
Subjective justification.
--
Ben Johnson
ONEstar
David A. Rodwell
>> >> <snip>
>Ahh... I suspected as much. You are attaching some sort of mystic notion
>to faith - in which case a dialectic is futile. You concede there is
>"strength in numbers"... so where do you think that strength comes from?
>It's not about strength in numbers though. We have faith in our inductive
>hypotheses - e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow. You seem to be taking the
>view that faith is something more than that. Thus, I think it is you who
>mis-apply the word.
I am unsure of the validity of your suspicion for the widely held definition
of the word "Faith" is not in accord with your usage. There was no
concession in the fact that strength in numbers is a given, although you may
interpret in that manner should you choose. Theories (hypothesis) fall onto
a relative scale of strong or weak as does faith (in an individual)
regarding the predictions made by means of theories. Arguments belong to
children while discussion may be useful to us both.
ONE
ONEstar
bfelton
>WRONG!
>None of the remarks below, down to the (self inserted) attributions is
>mine. Honestly, some people's quoting skills...
The reply you refer to does contain your remarks and the remarks of others
are noted by the number of ">" marks. If you are not capable of discerning
the thread and whose remarks are indicated (or if your memory is that weak),
then perhaps you may wish to refrain from such careless accusations which
result in your sound defeat.
Dishonesty is not indicated except by your accusations which have been
soundly refuted. Carelessness seems more indicated by your inadequacies in
following the thread. I suspect this is clarification enough even for you.
ONE
aeronaut
>aeronaut wrote:
>> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
...
>So, when it doesn't serve your purpose you don't interject double
>meanings. Please explain why God condoned, even instructed the Jews to
>take slaves.
Not to prolong this, but "I" never said the bible should only be taken
literally. Its apparent to me that most times it should be but
sometimes it's using figurative terms. I have made an attempt to
reasonably show why the term 'image' in Genesis should not be taken
literally.
As far as I know, slavery was not considered a sin in the bible. Why
wasn't it? If we go by what the bible says, God has a good reason for
everything he does (or in this case, doesn't do) though humans may not
always understand it at the time. However, to be fair, slavery in the
bible was not the same as people understand it in modern times.
ONEstar
pesh...@gte.net wrote in message <74qnab$563$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <8rQb2.1440$CE2.5...@news4.mia>,
> "ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ben Johnson
>>>> <snip>
>> >> >Let's use mankind in the physical sense. God creates mankind in
"it's"
>> >> >image. He then takes a rib from man to create woman. Sounds like
he's
>> >> >talking about the physical aspect of man to me. I believe later in
the
>> >> >Bible, it covers the 'spiritual' connection between mankind and God
but
>> >> >that doesn't displace the initial description.
>> I could draw that conclusion as you have, but then I recognize the
Creator
>> as a spirit being and thus realize he has no body to make an image of,
which
>> leaves the obvious alternative.
>Which is a pretty convenient thing to be able to do in today's politically
>correct enviornment.
Convenient or not, it remains the case.
>> >> >If God intended a literal reading of the Bible, then he would have
made
>> >> >clear your claim of 'spirituallity' or whatever just as he did the
>> >> >flood. Why so cryptic when obviously it could be avoided?
>> >> >I await in earnest your literal explanation.
>> >> I have found, that the Word was written in a manner which
is -timeless-.
>> >> This must be the case if even torch-burning fanatics were to find
truth
>> in it for more than a single century. What you regard as cryptic may
merely
>> be the manner it needed to be written in to retain relative perspective.
>> >So then explain to me how the issue of slavery is written to retain
>> >relative perpective.
>> I am unsure to which period where -slavery- existed you are referring to.
>> By ancient standards, any person currently employed by another is a slave
>> and his boss a master.
>"Employed"? Nice touch. Except employed didn't mean the same thing it
does
>today. The fact is those 'employed' had no freedom. They were chattel.
>If slavery is inherently wrong today, then why was not it inherently wrong
in
>ancient times? As it relates to God's physical nature, you posit that the
>verse I quoted perhaps was ambiguous in order to retain relative
perspective.
> I ask again, where is the relative perspective in slavery? It is quite
>clear. This a god that condones slavery.
There were responsibilities incumbent upon both parties, then as now. Also,
as it was then, there is substantial investment in the training of an
employee such that employers do not like to lose the trained ones. Mankind
has always been slave to something, be it economic hard times, feast or
famine, however it is men that enslave and not the Creator.
ONE
Thomas P.
(aeronaut) wrote:
>Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>aeronaut wrote:
>>> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>...
>
>>So, when it doesn't serve your purpose you don't interject double
>>meanings. Please explain why God condoned, even instructed the Jews to
>>take slaves.
>
>Not to prolong this, but "I" never said the bible should only be taken
>literally. Its apparent to me that most times it should be but
>sometimes it's using figurative terms. I have made an attempt to
>reasonably show why the term 'image' in Genesis should not be taken
>literally.
>
>As far as I know, slavery was not considered a sin in the bible. Why
>wasn't it? If we go by what the bible says, God has a good reason for
>everything he does (or in this case, doesn't do) though humans may not
>always understand it at the time. However, to be fair, slavery in the
>bible was not the same as people understand it in modern times.
>
Slavery in the Bible included the kidnapping of persons, the buying
and selling of these hostages, their forced labor, and their owners
sexual use of them. How does this differ from how people understand
slavery today?
Thomas P.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Thomas P.
wrote:
If a person can be bought in the same manner that one buys, for
example, a horse, and without that persons consent, that person is a
slave. It makes no difference how nicely he is treated, or how many
rules there were. The slave is not an employee; his master is not his
employer. The proper words, to use are "property" and "owner". Your
analogies have no relevance. Men enslaved, as you pointed out; the
creator approved according to the Bible. The creator didn't merely
approve, it demanded the enslavement of people defeated by the
Hebrews - when it didn't demand that they be slaughtered.
Ben Johnson
>
> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >aeronaut wrote:
> >> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> >So, when it doesn't serve your purpose you don't interject double
> >meanings. Please explain why God condoned, even instructed the Jews to
> >take slaves.
>
> literally. Its apparent to me that most times it should be but
> sometimes it's using figurative terms. I have made an attempt to
> reasonably show why the term 'image' in Genesis should not be taken
> literally.
All I'm saying is that it seems Christians make this determination
arbitrarily.
>
> As far as I know, slavery was not considered a sin in the bible. Why
> wasn't it? If we go by what the bible says, God has a good reason for
> everything he does (or in this case, doesn't do) though humans may not
> always understand it at the time. However, to be fair, slavery in the
> bible was not the same as people understand it in modern times.
Regardless of any other consideration, we should 'always' follow the
Bible, even though some of it may be questionable? Well, it's a good
thing *somebody* decided to question slavery after thousands of years or
it would still not be considered a 'sin'.
Ben Johnson
Very well put Mr. P.
Ben Johnson
>
> Ben Johnson wrote
>
> > >True. So to determine the reality of the situation, ultimately we must
> > >look to the source. The Bible.
>
> don't seem to even know what reality is. Reality is the sum of everything
> we perceive from our senses. To determine reality we use our senses. To
> claim the Bible is the source of reality is like a claiming a record
> player is the source of time. Nonsense. Are you suggesting that if the
> Bible had not survived its time (as many historical books did perish) that
> there would be no reality!???? And that there was no reality before the
> Bible was written!???? Please tell me how you determine that the Bible is
> the source of reality.
You are taking my statement out of context. My statement that we must
look to the Bible as the source of 'reality' refers to a specific
passage which states that God made man in his own image. The point of
the argument centers on whether God is a physical god and whether he is
a man or not. When it was suggested that God is spiritual and not
physical, I stated that was an arbitrary suggestion and that in order to
determine the 'reality' of this disagreement we have to look at the
actual source. The 'reality' I speak of here pertains only to this
point. That is all.
Perhaps I could have phrased it differently for people who like to take
stuff out of context but I fear that wouldn't have helped in your
situation.
>
> > >We can use logic or illogic to help
> > >arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
>
> No you don't. Give me an example of the way we can use 'illogic' to help
> arrive at a conclusion. Your suggestion of using 'illogic' is proof of
> your complete ignorance of logic.
>
> Rob
People do it all the time. Just look at yourself. You take statements
out of context then arrive at the conclusion that I'm confused. This
certainly isn't a logical way to arrive at a conclusion now is it?
It seems everyone else has followed along pretty well, except for you.
Brian M. Richardson
religious traditions recognize. I can not believe in a God of a PERSONAL
form. Referring to God as a father, a Lord, a He, a She, or a Master
clearly recognizes God as a personal manifestation of something that is
unknown.
To me, God is EVERYTHING. God is a beautiful flower in my backyard, the
wind that blows through my hair, the moment of joyous laughter with
friends, the moment of pain of a women giving birth, it is death, life,
pain, hunger, sex, all emotions, the constant movement of everything in
the entire universe which in itself has no bounds or clear definitions.
When we die, do we return to meet God?
I believe we have always been a part of the eternal energy that is God.
Live and let live.
What is the meaning of life?
The meaning of life is to feel the rapture of being alive. Feel the
happiness and the pain. They are both life. Yin-Yang principle.
"The Kingdom of God will not come as expected by man. The Kingdom of God
IS spread upon the earth yet men do not see it." Jesus Christ - according
to the Thomas Gospel.
helpu
there is no proof to any of your assertions only opinions.
Timothy Jones wrote in message ...
>
> That's easy. God does not exist (
>because time and the universe do exist. *If* such a god existed, there
>would be no reason for any "lagtime" between the initial conditions of
>reality and whatever endstate god wants there to be
how do you prove this . what if God it was wiser for there to be lag time
or time to develope and grow? and maybe from Gods view point all is already
done but from ours it is still happening(2 peter3.8) you just dont know for
sure. and arent all atheist just agnostics who refuse to admit it?
>psychological perfection, so god would have no needs or wants, and so,
>would not bother with any "plans" or "schemes" or "grand designes,"
>meant to perfect reality. No desire to do so, or any other desire at all
where do you find God having desires or needs? if God is love by nature as
well as just etc by nature then He is acting according to His nature or what
He is
>God, by definition, would have to be unmoving and unmoved.
and maybe from your vantage point and because of insufficient data you are
believing a lie .even though we're taught from grade school up to accept
what the doctor says what the scientist say etc. that doesnt make it true.
Well how many doctors have given wrong diagnoses and the person dies and
been like 'ooops' and scientists that said that a developing embroyo
exemplified the stages of evolution gills at one point etc well the
inventeer of such fact confessed to fraud and the fact was removed from
textbooks but even so it still is in some textbooks being taught in schools
today.
God said to Job where were you when I laid the foundation of the
earth ------ where were you or anyone else when all this was created or from
your point of view evolved where were you ? Where was anybody ? where was
Darwin? nobody saw any of it. you can just guess from some small
inconclusive peice of data upon which such important conclusions are drawn,
ask a scientist if evolution is fact and he'll say yes .ask him if his or
others conclusions are recanted or were recanted and he'll say yes as
well...
>TJ
>
>
Ben Johnson
>
> In article <74ugmn$jsi$3...@news-1.news.gte.net>, Ben Johnson> I have joined the discussion late, but your statement is wrong in ALL
> possible contexts.
>
> > My statement that we must
> > look to the Bible as the source of 'reality' refers to a specific
> > passage which states that God made man in his own image. The point of
> > the argument centers on whether God is a physical god and whether he is
> > a man or not. When it was suggested that God is spiritual and not
> > physical, I stated that was an arbitrary suggestion and that in order to
> > determine the 'reality' of this disagreement we have to look at the
> > actual source. The 'reality' I speak of here pertains only to this
> > point. That is all.
>
> like it is solid evidence like the law of gravity. You can't determine
> the reality (truth) of a deity by words in a book.
So what do you suppose Christians have been doing for 2000 years? They
say the resurrection occured. They say God is spirit. There is no
physical evidence other than what is in the Bible but they certainly
adhere to it. They base their 'truth' on this book.
My point was to demonstrate their inconsistency in their interpretation
of the Bible.
They interpret the flood and resurrection literally, but deny a literal
reading of the verse I originally quoted in regards to God's gender.
>
> > Perhaps I could have phrased it differently for people who like to take
> > stuff out of context but I fear that wouldn't have helped in your
> > situation.
>
> No matter what the context you have stated that the Bible is the source of
> determining the reality (giving you the benefit of the doubt on context)
> of the situation. This does not make sense.
Wrong. You can certainly determine the 'reality' of a Biblical subject
by looking to the Bible. Reality meaning what the Bible meant. Not
reality as an absolute.
Ask a Christian what the determining factor is when considering
'reality'. They will always point to the Bible as truth, reality,
whatever.
If I am using their own book against them as it pertains to
interpretation, then my use of 'reality' is correct.
>
> > > > >We can use logic or illogic to help
> > > > >arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
> > >
> > > No you don't. Give me an example of the way we can use 'illogic' to help
> > > arrive at a conclusion. Your suggestion of using 'illogic' is proof of
> > > your complete ignorance of logic.
> >
> > People do it all the time. Just look at yourself. You take statements
> > out of context then arrive at the conclusion that I'm confused. This
>
> Using your definition of what you meant you are still confused. And you
> water down the word reality in your own mind so it doesn't get in your
> way.
It might have been 'watered down', but my point was taken. Isn't that
the intent of a conversation? To make the other understand your
position?
***************************
Ben Johnson wrote:
> True. So to determine the reality of the situation, ultimately we must
> look to the source. The Bible. We can use logic or illogic to help
> arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
>
> --
> Ben Johnson
>
ONEstar wrote:
> The reality defies logic such that the conclusion remains nebulous although
> I suspect if we use the Word, the conclusion shall lean more toward mankind,
> than a single man.
>
> ONE
****************************
In this context, the "reality" we are trying to determine is the actual
gender of God according to the Bible. I didn't use reality in the sense
that it is the ultimate truth, rather what reality (God's gender) is,
based on what Christians use to base their belief system, the Bible.
ONE resonded by stating that 'The reality defies logic...' but when
questioned on the flood or resurrection, 'reality' no longer defies
logic because they hold to a literal interpretation which requires
logic.
I know of no Christian theologian that does not base their belief and
what 'reality' is on the Bible. I was simply pointing out that
Christians have this tendency to interpret things from the Bible so it
will fit into current social conditions but remain literal on other
things that are stated in the Bible.
Do not be surprised when the human genome project is completed and we
have a much better understanding of genetics that the Christian
community suddently changes their position on homosexuality as a sin.
Oh, just so that you don't rip into me I am aware that even after the
sequencing is completed, it will probably take years before we have a
solid understanding of it.
>
> > certainly isn't a logical way to arrive at a conclusion now is it?
>
> Simple logic, can't gain any truth from the Bible on issues of God since
> it's supposition. Where is the logical flaw in this? Suggesting use of
> 'ilogic' as possibly helpful is evidence of one's need to evade the truth.
>
> Rob
I think the bottom line is that no truth can be gained from the Bible
via simple logic or by any other method. Like you said it's all
supposition and requires faith. However, Christians use simple logic
when discussing the flood but abandon it on other issues, which was my
point which you missed no doubt as a result of your anality as it
pertains to my use of 'reality' in that particular post.
At any rate, what you seem so hot and bothered about all just comes down
to semantics.
My point was made to the original debator, sorry if you don't like it.
Robert Chapman
> >True. So to determine the reality of the situation, ultimately we must
> >look to the source. The Bible.
Yours is the most confused post I have ever seen on this newsgroup. You
don't seem to even know what reality is. Reality is the sum of everything
we perceive from our senses. To determine reality we use our senses. To
claim the Bible is the source of reality is like a claiming a record
player is the source of time. Nonsense. Are you suggesting that if the
Bible had not survived its time (as many historical books did perish) that
there would be no reality!???? And that there was no reality before the
Bible was written!???? Please tell me how you determine that the Bible is
the source of reality.
> >We can use logic or illogic to help
> >arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
No you don't. Give me an example of the way we can use 'illogic' to help
arrive at a conclusion. Your suggestion of using 'illogic' is proof of
your complete ignorance of logic.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> You are taking my statement out of context.
I have joined the discussion late, but your statement is wrong in ALL
possible contexts.
> My statement that we must
> look to the Bible as the source of 'reality' refers to a specific
> passage which states that God made man in his own image. The point of
> the argument centers on whether God is a physical god and whether he is
> a man or not. When it was suggested that God is spiritual and not
> physical, I stated that was an arbitrary suggestion and that in order to
> determine the 'reality' of this disagreement we have to look at the
> actual source. The 'reality' I speak of here pertains only to this
> point. That is all.
Which makes you no less confused. You are taking the word of the Bible
like it is solid evidence like the law of gravity. You can't determine
the reality (truth) of a deity by words in a book.
> Perhaps I could have phrased it differently for people who like to take
> stuff out of context but I fear that wouldn't have helped in your
> situation.
No matter what the context you have stated that the Bible is the source of
determining the reality (giving you the benefit of the doubt on context)
of the situation. This does not make sense.
> > > >We can use logic or illogic to help
> > > >arrive at the conclusion. I prefer logic.
> >
> > No you don't. Give me an example of the way we can use 'illogic' to help
> > arrive at a conclusion. Your suggestion of using 'illogic' is proof of
> > your complete ignorance of logic.
>
> People do it all the time. Just look at yourself. You take statements
> out of context then arrive at the conclusion that I'm confused. This
Using your definition of what you meant you are still confused. And you
water down the word reality in your own mind so it doesn't get in your
way.
> certainly isn't a logical way to arrive at a conclusion now is it?
aeronaut
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:07:00 GMT, aero...@palacenet.net.REMOVE
>(aeronaut) wrote:
>>Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>>>aeronaut wrote:
>>>> Ben Johnson <peshitt...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>So, when it doesn't serve your purpose you don't interject double
>>>meanings. Please explain why God condoned, even instructed the Jews to
>>>take slaves.
>>
>>Not to prolong this, but "I" never said the bible should only be taken
>>literally. Its apparent to me that most times it should be but
>>sometimes it's using figurative terms. I have made an attempt to
>>reasonably show why the term 'image' in Genesis should not be taken
>>literally.
>>
>>As far as I know, slavery was not considered a sin in the bible. Why
>>wasn't it? If we go by what the bible says, God has a good reason for
>>everything he does (or in this case, doesn't do) though humans may not
>>always understand it at the time. However, to be fair, slavery in the
>>bible was not the same as people understand it in modern times.
>>
>
>Slavery in the Bible included the kidnapping of persons, the buying
>and selling of these hostages, their forced labor, and their owners
>sexual use of them. How does this differ from how people understand
>slavery today?
>Thomas P.
>
>Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
The terms used for 'slave' in the bible can also be rendered as
'servant'. These persons not only included war captives but those who
voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. All slaves were protected
by law from abuse and entitled to certain privileges and as far as I'm
aware of in the bible, slaves were generally well taken care of by the
Hebrews. I refer only to the Hebrews because God apparently didn't
concern himself with the practices of any other people in the OT
except as how it related to his chosen people. Case in point, he
freed only the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.
This is my opinion after further thought on the previous post:
It would seem that in the new covenant, when the kingdom became
accessible to all people, God left the question of slavery up to
humans. It can be reasoned that as a Christian, if you truly loved
your neighbor you wouldn't seek to hold him against his will.
Under Mosaic law kidnapping as well as rape carried the penalty of
death. Neither was rape allowed during military campaigns. Out of
curiousity I would be interested to know which passages you are
referring to above.