"John Ings" <nodamned@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ikjofv0mhouc3l6k2cho9etde5o7mcpmna@no-spam
> And who is responsible for our behaviour but who takes no
> responsibility for our misdeeds. A monster who leaves men like Hitler
> and Stalin free to torment millions and a fallen angel running loose
> to encourage them. According to your mythology anyway...
All right, listen up
I've had it to here with this athiestic baloney. I'm sick and tired of
listening to a bunch of close-minded philosophical loonies yacking about
Christianity's supposed closed mindedness. Sheesh.
Here's the deal. This is alt.christnet.THEOLOGY, not alt.atheism, not
alt.philosophy, not alt.listen-to-an-atheist-rant-and-rave. I came here to
get some good, Christian thought. If you want to debate the existence or
none-existence of any supreme deity, be it Allah, Zeus, Ra, or the
Judeo-Christian God, then go somewhere else. I'm not here to listen to you
cloud up good, sound, teaching with your curse-filled blasphemy. Just leave
me alone.
If that's not enough to shut you up, then try this. I. Don't. Care. If
you want to make the choice to not believe in a god at all, that's your
business. I know you've probably heard this before, but what if you're
right, and there is no god? I have lost nothing. I've simply ceased to be,
and I've lived a good life with nothing to be ashamed of. But suppose I am
right, and there is a God whose "mythology" you constantly complain about is
true, and who judges you based on your dead-set opposition not only to his
statements about his nature, the Bible, but also his people, and most of
all, himself. Then you will spend the rest of eternity cursing, gnawing your
tongue, and wailing in agony in a very real, very painful Hell. Is that a
risk you want to take? Either you are correct, or I am. That's a fifty-fifty
chance, in case you aren't good with numbers. I have nothing to lose, you
however, do.
Regardless, leave me alone on here. All I want is to read some truth
from Godly people, and try to discern what God's will is for my life. Don't
mess up this for me. I don't go on alt.atheism and tell everyone about
Jesus, although maybe I should. Why don't you just let me go on about my
life. Y You probably don't believe in an absolute truth anyway, so
just let me accept this as my truth, and you go talk with the rest of your
like-minded atheist friends, okay?
Austin
PS, I notice most of you atheists cross-post your propoganda to different
usenet groups. As far as I can see, they're all Christian groups. Didn't
Plato point out that when a man who has seen the truth tries to live among
men who have not, he is usually severely persecuted and often killed? Funny
how you've selected the Christians as the object of your persecution, isn't
it?
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:30:38 -0500, "Austin Johnson"
<ajfiles@no-spam> wrote:
>> And who is responsible for our behaviour but who takes no
>> responsibility for our misdeeds. A monster who leaves men like Hitler
>> and Stalin free to torment millions and a fallen angel running loose
>> to encourage them. According to your mythology anyway...
>
> All right, listen up
> I've had it to here with this athiestic baloney. I'm sick and tired of
>listening to a bunch of close-minded philosophical loonies yacking about
>Christianity's supposed closed mindedness. Sheesh.
En garde then...
> Here's the deal. This is alt.christnet.THEOLOGY,
No it ain't. I'm in alt.religion. I have no idea where the original
poster was posting from, so I have to reply to all newsgroups.
> not alt.atheism, not
>alt.philosophy, not alt.listen-to-an-atheist-rant-and-rave. I came here to
>get some good, Christian thought.
What's that got to do with the contents of that daily devotional?
Good Christian though exists no doubt, but that wasn't it!
> If you want to debate the existence or
>none-existence of any supreme deity, be it Allah, Zeus, Ra, or the
>Judeo-Christian God, then go somewhere else.
alt.religion is an appropriate forum for it.
>I'm not here to listen to you cloud up good, sound, teaching
What good sound teaching?
>with your curse-filled blasphemy.
Curse filled? I termed the writer of that devotional a pompous ass.
That's a curse in your book? As for blasphemy, it's a victimless
crime.
> Just leave me alone.
Your mouse button doesn't work anymore? You HAVE to read my posts?
> If that's not enough to shut you up, then try this. I. Don't. Care.
And I don't care if you don't care. I'm trying to reach people who do
care. People who do think about their faith, Christian and otherwise.
> If
>you want to make the choice to not believe in a god at all, that's your
>business.
And if you want to believe that the fatuous nonsense in that
devotional represents sound theology, that's your business.
But it would profit you to think about it a little.
>I know you've probably heard this before, but what if you're
>right, and there is no god? I have lost nothing. I've simply ceased to be,
>and I've lived a good life with nothing to be ashamed of.
Unfortunately no. Your beliefs will have affected the society in which
you live, sometimes for the better, often to that society's detriment.
Christians often leave a legacy of social structures to be ashamed of
when thy depart this life.
>But suppose I am
>right, and there is a God whose "mythology" you constantly complain about is
>true,
Then we're all in big trouble, including you.
>and who judges you based on your dead-set opposition not only to his
>statements about his nature, the Bible,
No no! That's a key point and you need to pay attention to it. You
have no sound rason to believe that the Bible is anything but the work
of man. If God is insane enough to underwrite the biblical description
of him; if God is really the brute the Bible describes, then as I
said, we're all in big trouble.
>but also his people,
Which people would those be? Which sect of 'True Christians'?
>and most of
>all, himself. Then you will spend the rest of eternity cursing, gnawing your
>tongue, and wailing in agony in a very real, very painful Hell.
Is Heaven a better alternative? After a century of so of listening to
the devout praying saccarine prayers and caterwauling hyms, I suspect
a pool of burning brimstone would look pretty attractive!
> Is that a
>risk you want to take? Either you are correct, or I am. That's a fifty-fifty
>chance, in case you aren't good with numbers.
No way! You're the one whose math needs work. 50/50? There are
hundreds of sectarian theologies that term themselves Christian, and
which insist their fellow Christains really aren't 'True Christians'.
Which one should I pick? Presumably one that reasons better than the
writer of that devotional.
>I have nothing to lose, you however, do.
Your Christ accepts allegiance on the basis of a cynical bet does he?
You can get to heaven on the basis od "I believed because I had
nothing to loose"? Nah. That's Pascal's wager, and it was dumb when HE
proposed it.
> Regardless, leave me alone on here.
Do tell me how it is that I'm compelling you to read my posts.
I hadn't realized that it's possible to do that.
>All I want is to read some truth from Godly people,
Truth from unbelievers isn't of interest huh?
>and try to discern what God's will is for my life.
And you don't appreciate somebody pointing out that you've been
misled? Only confirming opinions desired. Fundy billing and cooing?
> Don't
>mess up this for me. I don't go on alt.atheism and tell everyone about
>Jesus, although maybe I should.
You can if you like. I don't go there myself.
>Why don't you just let me go on about my life.
Again, please, please explain just how I'm preventing you from
doing so. Is it that hard to skip over a message?
> You probably don't believe in an absolute truth anyway, so
>just let me accept this as my truth,
No, truth isn't subjective. There is only one reality.
> and you go talk with the rest of your
>like-minded atheist friends, okay?
While you True Believers confirm and comfort one another?
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
>PS, I notice most of you atheists cross-post your propoganda to different
>usenet groups.
I almost never cross-post. In fact I seldom initiate threads, I just
respond to them, and my replies go to the newsgroups in the header.
>As far as I can see, they're all Christian groups. Didn't
>Plato point out that when a man who has seen the truth tries to live among
>men who have not, he is usually severely persecuted and often killed? Funny
>how you've selected the Christians as the object of your persecution, isn't
>it?
Christians are the most active proslytizers, but I don't aim at any
particular religion. I post only in alt.bible, alt.religion and
alt.religion.apologetics The latter forum can be construed to be a
forum for Christian apologists, but against whom can the apologist
defend if there's no 'loyal opposition'?
So, having vented your spleen, do you feel better?
I am very thick skinned and don't mind being cussed at.
## Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die!
"John Ings" <nodamned@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vnarfvot9cnmv3s8tgfei0jojmlr6q02iq@no-spam
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:30:38 -0500, "Austin Johnson"
> <ajfiles@no-spam> wrote:
> Christians are the most active proslytizers, but I don't aim at any
> particular religion. I post only in alt.bible, alt.religion and
> alt.religion.apologetics The latter forum can be construed to be a
> forum for Christian apologists, but against whom can the apologist
> defend if there's no 'loyal opposition'?
> So, having vented your spleen, do you feel better?
> I am very thick skinned and don't mind being cussed at.
> ## Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die!
Hi John:
What sane man wants to go to "heaven". Give me rest in peace, not some
factious "eternal boredom".
Take care friend,
--
Stephen Bayzik
> "John Ings" <nodamned@no-spam> wrote in message
> > I am very thick skinned and don't mind being cussed at.
> >
By the way, I forgot to mention this, but you needn't worry about me cussing
at you. I'll only use very mean diction, even when flaming.
-Austin
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:56:37 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@no-spam> wrote:
>Hi John:
>
>What sane man wants to go to "heaven". Give me rest in peace, not some
>factious "eternal boredom".
>
>Take care friend,
I was trying to remember when we first encountered each other in
cyberspace Stephen. BBS newsgroups--- when? Late 1980s?
## Flash! Pope goes to Mount Olive. Popeye damn near kills him!
I'm going to try this bit-for-bit. I'm not used to it, but I'll give it a
shot.
"John Ings" <nodamned@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vs4sfv85r1jaksv90j0142bosj00m8his5@no-spam
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:43:57 -0500, "Austin Johnson"
> <ajfiles@no-spam> wrote:
>
> I usually match my reply to the tone of the response, polite to polite
> and flame for flame. In this case however, I was guilty of some excess
> in my original post. I was exasperated by the fatuous theology of this
> particular day's devotional. Some of the daily posts rhuff makes from
> this source aren't all that bad, but this one was particularly silly.
> So when my little diatribe proked your ire, I was feeling just a mite
> guilty. Just a mite though :)
Okay, lets try to continue this like civilized men, then, shall we? No more
diatribes and rants.
> Or like Jefferson, who said he was a Christian "in the only sense in
> which he (Jesus) wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his
> doctrines in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every
> human excellence and believing he never claimed any other."
You'll have to explain how this helps your point. I'm not quite catching it.
The language is a bit too archaic, and the modification from he to Jesus is
passing over my head. It's late, and I've had unusually bad day at work.
> Especially when they declare "by their fruit shall ye know them" and
> then produce lemons!
That is true. Christians are just as fallible as other men, a point I
believe I stated before. I still persist that that:
> >does not mean that one or two of their
> >points are very close to the truth.
>
You've countered:
> But it does mean that your guidebook isn't working very well.
Here we disagree. I believe that the Bible, which I assume you refer to when
you say "guidebook", is the infallible, incorruptible word of God. The
problem is with man. Man is not infallible, he makes mistakes, even when
interpretting and attempting to understand the Bible. It is much the same as
the man who assumed that a corpse produces flies from its matter. He made
the statement based on an understanding that there was a relationship
between the flies and the body, but did not understand the nuances of the
truth. He misinterpretted his data.
> I have encountered many who have this curious idea that everybody can
> have their own private reality. That something can be true for you and
> false for me or vice-versa.
I have actually heard that that argument is extremely popular among
atheists, and even more so among secular humanists.
> Nietzsche is peachy!
Here we disagree, largely because an atheist can agree with Nietzche (sorry
for the earlier misspelling) a lot easier than a Christian. About the only
thing I actually like about him is his idea that man has tried to put God
out of his thinking. Nietzche said that "killed" God. I disagree here, but I
do believe it is a large part of the root of Man's problems.
> So how have you made out with causality?
I'm not up on all of the terms yet, I'm just barely out of High School in a
tiny town. Its a miracle I know what little I know of who I know. Who were
the major philosophers of the movement? You may need to expand here.
Me:
> > Does this mean I should abandon philosophy altogether?
You:
> Hardly. Remember, philosophers spend more time disagreeing with
> each-other than anything else.
Exactly the point I attempt to make about theologians. They spend a lot of
time disagreeing with each other, but that doesn't mean they should be
abandoned. The same is true of Christians.
> Lewis lost my respect when he came up with that Lord, liar or lunatic
> 'Trilemma'. One of the dumbest ideas that ever came down the pike.
Here, I am almost, almost, provoked. Lewis was absolutely correct with his
words about "Lord, lunatic or liar." If a man walked down the street today,
claiming that he, personally, was "THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life," and
that there was "no way to the Father except through HIM," he has set down an
absolute. Either he is what he says, or he is not. If he is not, he is a
liar. If he is not, but sincerely believes he is, he is either sorely
mistaken or absolutely crazy. Otherwise, if he is not a liar, and not a
looney, he is what he said. And if he is, then he really is Lord.
> > Each Christian believes that Man has fallen
> >from grace and needs to reconcile himself with God.
>
> Yeah. Now right there Christian theology begins to sound illogical to
> me. The very concept seems wrong to my mind.
>
Woah. Hmm. You've got a very different worldview than I, then. If man did
not fall, then certainly there is no need for God. But I believe that Man
did fall, and has continued to do so. Before you ask why, just wait a bit.
It is eleven o clock, and I just got off work. I'm not running at full speed
yet.
>
> Now think a bit. Why would God hide from his creations and demand that
> they believe in him without proof-- by faith alone? Does that really
> sound like something an omnipotent deity would require? Or is it more
> like something a preacher who can't prove his vapourware would invent?
I believe if I were the God I believe in, then yes. God requires a belief
without proof for the simple reason that he wants people who will
unconditionally love him (the Greek word is agape), like he unconditionally
loves us. He created beings with free will because he wants them to be his
sons, not just his toys. He wants beings who can freely participate in a
relationship with him. You wouldn't want to date a store window dummy, would
you?
>
> Will there be any possibility of sin there?
>
An interesting theological question. Certainly at one point there was.
Lucifer was a perfect being, an angel who committed the sin of Rebellion and
fell out of heaven. You must admit, whether you believe in God or not,
Paradise Lost is an excellent work. I believe that there would be, except
that the beings that will be in heaven will have already made their choice
about sin. A Christian will have chosen God, and in his presence will be
free of his sin nature.
> >Surely you already agree with a part of this. Man has fallen.
> >He has broken himself and his world.
>
> Nope. My disagreement starts earlier than that. If God made man, and
> God is omnipotent, then man cannot be any way other than the way God
> wanted him.
>
You are nearing the truth, if you could just see it. It's over the horizon,
just a few steps and you'll be there. God wanted man free. Man is free. That
is the truth. When you see that God wants man free, you will see that man is
free, and his freedom allows him to be able to accept or refuse God. The
very ability to question God illustrates a Free Will. You have chosen, of
your own free will, to believe that there is no God. God does not like this,
but he lets your will override. His will is that you have your own will. I
have a great illustration from Lewis for this, but you don't like him, so
we'll just let it be.
> I don't. I see mankind as better off than we ever have been. Our
> numbers are too great and our environment is hurting to be sure, but
> at least we now understand that we're doing harm and why.
But will it ever change? Recall the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Anything left
alone decays. This applies to social relationships just as well. If there is
no God, as you believe, then the lack of his work to prevent decay would be
evidence. You cannot not believe in God and still claim that the world is
getting better all the time. Do people seem friendlier? Are they happy? We
have technology that can allow you and I to argue this from thousands of
miles apart, but do humans really get along with each other any better? If
Man is doing better, then why is philosophy still searching for answers to
the same questions it was 4000 years ago? Surely they would have gotten
somewhere by now.
>
> >The Christian believes that this is a result of sin.
>
> The atheist believes its a result of natural processes.
>
But you have contradicted yourself. I believe that man's problem is a result
of sin. You believe that man's problem is the result of natural processes.
See above. You said there that the problem I saw, which you explain the
cause of here, is ficticious as the God I believe in.You have explained the
cause of a non-existant effect. Newton would be proud. :)
> >The Bible tells us that everyone sins.
>
> Which sounds like a preacher's self-serving invention to me.
> First invent a disease (original sin) so you can then sell the cure
> (salvation).
In order for someone to invent a disease, somewhere along, there must have
been an inventor. The Bible is thousands of years old. The New Testament
goes back to just a few years after the death of Christ. Two of the Gospels
were written by eyewitness. The others are compilations of reports by
hundreds of eyewitnesses. Are you suggesting that the entireity of the
Bible, along with the majority of modern civilization are the result of a
hoax pulled off by twelve average joes (three of them were fishermen, one
was a tax collector) and one ex-pharisee two thousand-odd years ago?
>
> >This is evidenced in everyday life.
>
> I see no such evidence.
>
You see no evidence of sin? How, then, do you define sin? Sin is a departure
from the laws set down by God. If you just take the Ten Commandments, then
everyone has broken one sometime in their life. I'm eighteen. I've broken
about seven. If you put what Jesus says about hatred meaning you've murdered
someone in your mind, and what he said about lust being adultery of the mind
into the equation, I've broken all ten. I've broken some of them this very
day. No doubt you have too.
> >It tells us that God hates sin, and must keep it far away from him.
>
> If God hates sin so much, why does he leave Satan running loose
> instigating more?
Because he offers Man an alternative. God wants free sons, remember? He
wants them to be able to choose him or choose something else. If there was
no Satan, there would be no choice, and man would not be free.
>
> >As a result, Man, a sinner, is separated from the ultimate, Holy God.
>
> An omnipotent being who is angry because he can't have what he wants?
> Nah! That's not credible!
That's not what I said. I didn't say God was angry, but holy. What that
means in this context is that God is just. He wrote the laws, we broke them.
We deserve a punishment. We owe retribution for our sins. That retribution
is ultimate separation from God.
>
> >The
> >Christian believes that God loved the sinner, but hated the sin, and sent
> >his Son, Jesus, to pay for Man's sin.
> > The death and resurrection of Jesus
> >meant that every man who believed in him would not die, but live forever.
>
> How very convenient for the evangelist! Just believe, (and fill his
> collection plate) and eternal life is yours! Of course we don't get to
> test the veracity of this promise.
It is convenient, and some evangelists do take advantage of it. Your taxes
are a fact. Some accountants make an unfair profit from figuring them. Does
that mean that the tax should be left alone, unpaid. No. It means you should
get it figured elsewhere. Greedy evangelists happen, but there are many good
evangelists out there who want you to find God, regardless of money. If you
would find him, I believe I would weep for joy. I want you to meet him.
There's nothing in it for me, but that I want you to find God, and be saved.
I honestly want to see you in heaven someday.
Also, Don't forget that that promise, stated in John 3:16, predates every
modern evangelist at whom you point a finger by two thousand years. John
wrote it down in prison, from memory of a youth spent with Jesus. What did
he stand to gain but several more years in prison?
>
> >Does this sound like a merciless God?
>
> Yes it does. Tease out your salvation algorithm a little further and
> take a good look at it. The contrite sinner goes to heaven unpunished.
> His victim, an unbeliever, gets eternal torment.
>
Contrite is the wrong word. Repentant is. Everyone has messed up. I have
messed up. Today, I looked at a young lady in an inappropriate way. I hated
my boss. I came closer to cussing people out than I ever have before, but
I'm forgiven. I believe that Jesus died for all that sin, and rose so that I
could trust him and repent, turn from my sin,and run to him. One day, in
heaven, I'll stand beside him, unworthy, humbled like a child before a
parent hurt by his deeds. I'll look at him and he'll say "It's all right,
you're forgiven," and I'll enter eternity.
An unbeliever has not asked forgiveness. He has stood before God all his
life and gone his own way. He has fought God tooth and nail. His sins are
not forgiven. It's too late to ask then. He's made his choice on earth, and
must suffer the consequence. That consequence is separation from God in a
black pit full of flame called Hell.
> > All you have to do is believe in
> >Jesus' death and resurrection and you can be safe from Hell.
>
> And as I asked in my little diatribe, what is the purpose of Hell?
> Have you thought about that?
>
The purpose of hell is to be a place separate from God. It exists where God
is not. That is Hell. The utter blackness of being separated from light,
hope, truth, and worst of all, love. Everything that is good, is with God.
Away from Hell, as far away as possible.
> >Surely a God
> >who loves mankind so much, despite their sin, that he sent his Son to die
in
> >their place,
>
> Jesus is dead?
No. Jesus was raised from the dead three days after he died. In his
resurrection, he conquered death, and granted life to those who believe in
him.
> > can not be the sadistical, human-hating God you paint him as.
>
> Surely he can. The Bible so describes him. Or is only part of the
> Bible true? The nice parts, not the ones that say God murders little
> children to punish their father?
The entire Bible is true. Not just the mean parts. Not just the ones that
give you trouble. Yes, God does what is just in his eyes. He deals out
justice in a way we don't understand, because we don't see the world like he
does. He's not tame. We don't control him. We can only submit to his will or
fight it. But there is another side you refuse to see. You see a God that
punishes when it doesn't make sense. You refuse to also see the God who
blesses and loves when it doesn't make sense. God is called the Father. That
is the perfect word. Your father punished you sometimes, when it didn't make
sense. But he also did things for you when it was absolutely against what
you thought was sense. He loved you, and he also punished you. God gives,
and he takes away. Praise God for this.
> ## Faith means not wanting to know what is true. NIETZSCHE
I dare say it takes a good deal of faith to believe there is no God, when
alot of people disagree, wouldn't you?
Mr. Ings, I will be praying for you. I want you to know that the God I
believe in loves you, whether you believe in him or not. He wants to be able
to let you into his kingdom. He wants you to love him in return. Please, I
beg you, do so. Believe in this love that can save you before it is too
late. A man can deny the truth so long that he can see no other way of
thinking. Please try to believe in Jesus. Try to understand him. Seek
something. Even if you don't want to believe in Jesus, seek truth. Seek God
out there. If you are honestly looking for him, he will find you. I will be
praying for you. Please understand, I pray because I want you with me in
heaven. I want to stand there as you finally meet the God you doubted for so
long, and see him smile and embrace you as a Father to a son.
Thank you for listening. I'll let you alone now. Please think about what
I've said. Consider God.
Austin
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:17:30 -0500, "Austin Johnson"
<ajfiles@no-spam> wrote:
>I'm going to try this bit-for-bit. I'm not used to it, but I'll give it a
>shot.
A heirarchy of interwoven comment is the usual newsgroup style. It has
distinct advantages. I've seen many a face-to-face debate rage on
because the listening party was paying little attention to what the
speaker was saying, being too busy mentally composing his rebuttal.
Also in monolithic responses, key points early on don't get addressed
because they get forgotten. When you comment on every sentence, and
somtimes individual phrases, things don't get lost.
>Okay, lets try to continue this like civilized men, then, shall we? No more
>diatribes and rants.
Well, I'll try, but I do have hot-buttons!
>> Or like Jefferson, who said he was a Christian "in the only sense in
>> which he (Jesus) wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his
>> doctrines in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every
>> human excellence and believing he never claimed any other."
>
>You'll have to explain how this helps your point. I'm not quite catching it.
The key is in the phrase "ascribing to himself every human excellence
and believing he never claimed any other". Jefferson, like many key
figures in the birth of the US, was a Deist. He admired Jesus as a man
(human excellence) but did not consider him a deity.
>> >does not mean that one or two of their
>> >points are very close to the truth.
>> But it does mean that your guidebook isn't working very well.
>
>Here we disagree. I believe that the Bible, which I assume you refer to when
>you say "guidebook", is the infallible, incorruptible word of God.
That makes you an inerrantist, and easy prey. Those Christians who are
not inerrantists (the majority) are much more difficult for us
unbelievers to give a hard time.
>The
>problem is with man. Man is not infallible, he makes mistakes, even when
>interpretting and attempting to understand the Bible.
The Bible lends itself to misinterpretation. It facilitates and
encourages dissent and sectarianism becuse it was born in an age of
theological turmoil and mirrors the fulminating intersectarian battles
of its time.
>> I have encountered many who have this curious idea that everybody can
>> have their own private reality. That something can be true for you and
>> false for me or vice-versa.
>
>I have actually heard that that argument is extremely popular among
>atheists, and even more so among secular humanists.
Quite the opposite. It's the devout I hear that from. I suspect the
atheist/secular humanist stance you hear is 'moral relativism', which
is not quite the same thing.
>> Nietzsche is peachy!
>
>Here we disagree, largely because an atheist can agree with Nietzche (sorry
>for the earlier misspelling) a lot easier than a Christian.
Oh yeah! Bigtime!
But the phrase was an old mnemonic. Peachy rhymes with Nietzsche.
>About the only
>thing I actually like about him is his idea that man has tried to put God
>out of his thinking. Nietzche said that "killed" God.
Killed God as a concept. Would that it were so!
>> So how have you made out with causality?
>
>I'm not up on all of the terms yet, I'm just barely out of High School in a
>tiny town. Its a miracle I know what little I know of who I know. Who were
>the major philosophers of the movement? You may need to expand here.
Causality is an issue, not a movement. It is the philosophical debate
about whether everything must have a cause or not. As a Christian you
believe in an uncaused-cause (God). For a good book on the subject
see--
"On the Existence and Nature of God"
by Richard M. Gale
[Cambridge Univ Press 1991]
ISBN 0-521-45723-8
>> Lewis lost my respect when he came up with that Lord, liar or lunatic
>> 'Trilemma'. One of the dumbest ideas that ever came down the pike.
>
>Here, I am almost, almost, provoked. Lewis was absolutely correct with his
>words about "Lord, lunatic or liar."
Aw c'mon now! Think man! Can't you come up with a fourth alternative?
It's not a trilemma, it's a quadrilemma and the fourth alternative is
by far the most probable.
>> > Each Christian believes that Man has fallen
>> >from grace and needs to reconcile himself with God.
>>
>> Yeah. Now right there Christian theology begins to sound illogical to
>> me. The very concept seems wrong to my mind.
>
>Woah. Hmm. You've got a very different worldview than I, then.
Yes.
> If man did not fall, then certainly there is no need for God.
Woah. Hmm. There's only a God because man needs one?
You've got a very different worldview than I, then. :-)
>But I believe that Man did fall, and has continued to do so.
I believe that man is an accident, a chance construct of evolution.
He is what he is (violent and self-centered) because he grew up in an
exceedingly violent and brutal environment.
Please note that this does NOT preclude the existence of a creating
God. Just not the kind Genesis describes.
> Before you ask why, just wait a bit.
>It is eleven o clock, and I just got off work. I'm not running at full speed
>yet.
A midnight warrior. Me, I post in the early morning.
>I believe if I were the God I believe in, then yes. God requires a belief
>without proof for the simple reason that he wants people who will
>unconditionally love him (the Greek word is agape),
Love what they can't see, can't discern, can't assess? How can you
fall in love with someone whose characteristics you know only from a
book, and that book says he's a wanton murderer of little kids?
> like he unconditionally loves us.
In a very peculiar manner.
Like proposing to torment us with eternal life.
> He created beings with free will because he wants them to be his
>sons, not just his toys.
Nope. That doesn't wash if God is omnipotent. You do believe that
don't you? Because if God is omnipotent, you're a toy. You can't be
anything else.
>He wants beings who can freely participate in a
>relationship with him.
But he'll torture for all eternity those who don't
'freely participate' in the right manner?
Then he gets real vague about what's the right manner...
>You wouldn't want to date a store window dummy, would you?
I don't want to date anybody who's going to torment
for all eternity anybody who doesn't love them.
That would be akin to marrying a divorce lawyer!
>> Will there be any possibility of sin there?
>>
>An interesting theological question.
Careful! It's a trap!
>Certainly at one point there was.
>Lucifer was a perfect being, an angel who committed the sin of Rebellion and
>fell out of heaven. You must admit, whether you believe in God or not,
>Paradise Lost is an excellent work. I believe that there would be, except
>that the beings that will be in heaven will have already made their choice
>about sin. A Christian will have chosen God, and in his presence will be
>free of his sin nature.
You can see the trap can't you? If you declare that there is a
possibility of another fall, then what? Another round of sin and
salvation?
And if there is no possibility, the natural question is, why didn't
God make things that way in the first place?
Note that all this pivots on the issue of God being omniscient and
omnipotent. If you concede he might not be, then such arguments are
defeated.
>> >Surely you already agree with a part of this. Man has fallen.
>> >He has broken himself and his world.
>>
>> Nope. My disagreement starts earlier than that. If God made man, and
>> God is omnipotent, then man cannot be any way other than the way God
>> wanted him.
>
>You are nearing the truth, if you could just see it. It's over the horizon,
>just a few steps and you'll be there. God wanted man free. Man is free. That
>is the truth. When you see that God wants man free, you will see that man is
>free, and his freedom allows him to be able to accept or refuse God. The
>very ability to question God illustrates a Free Will.
Let's make an analogy here. Suppose I sit down opposite you at a table
and fan out a deck of cards. Then I pull out a Glock 9mm and point it
at your forhead. "Pick a card," I tell you, "or I'll blow your head
off! What's more, if the card you pick isn't the ace of spades, I'm
gonna blow your head off anyway!". Now you believe that I'm crazy
enough to do just that. So do you have free will in this coercive
situation?
Hey, you've got the choice of dying for sure or taking a 51 to 1
chance of dying don't you? You have 'free will' then doncha?
If your God truly is as Christians imagine, then that's my kind of
'free will' choice, only the odds aren't as good as 51 to 1.
>You have chosen, of your own free will, to believe that there is no God.
No, that's not my choice. I don't believe in any god or gods.
That's not the same as declaring they don't exist.
>God does not like this,
Why? He won't show himself. How am I to choose?
>but he lets your will override. His will is that you have your own will.
But he's gonna torment me for being wrong!
>> I don't. I see mankind as better off than we ever have been. Our
>> numbers are too great and our environment is hurting to be sure, but
>> at least we now understand that we're doing harm and why.
>
>But will it ever change?
Could go either way. Back into the Dark Ages with theology presiding,
or into the future with science in charge.
> Recall the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Anything left
>alone decays. This applies to social relationships just as well.
I strongly suspect you misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
(Careful! Hot-button!)
>If there is no God, as you believe,
No I don't believe that.
> then the lack of his work to prevent decay would be evidence.
Define 'decay'. Careful, you're playing on MY pool table...
>You cannot not believe in God and still claim that the world is
>getting better all the time.
Getting 'better' according to whose standards?
> Do people seem friendlier?
Than they were in past centuries? Generally yes.
>Are they happy?
Happier than they were in past centuries by a wide margin. A ghetto
dweller living on welfare has luxuries such as a Roman emperor never
dreamt of.
>We
>have technology that can allow you and I to argue this from thousands of
>miles apart, but do humans really get along with each other any better?
A little. Not a lot, but our xenophobia is an old survival instinct
that's hard to overcome.
> If
>Man is doing better, then why is philosophy still searching for answers to
>the same questions it was 4000 years ago?
Hey, it's solved some of them!
>Surely they would have gotten somewhere by now.
We have. A lot of silly superstition has been overcome.
We're no longer debating how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.
>> >The Christian believes that this is a result of sin.
>>
>> The atheist believes its a result of natural processes.
>
>But you have contradicted yourself. I believe that man's problem is a result
>of sin. You believe that man's problem is the result of natural processes.
>See above. You said there that the problem I saw, which you explain the
>cause of here, is ficticious as the God I believe in.You have explained the
>cause of a non-existant effect. Newton would be proud. :)
Huh? Let's make sure we have the 'problem' defined properly here.
You declared "Surely you already agree with a part of this. Man has
fallen. He has broken himself and his world."
No I don't agree man has fallen. I don't agree that he has broken
himself. Yes he has broken his world, terrorized the environment,
annihilated thouands of species, turned green forests into deserts and
polluted the air. But he did so in ignorance, not as a result of
sinfulness, but because of a feeble understanding of natural
processes. These days we know we're doing it at least. Maybe we can
stop in time, if our greed doesn't prevail.
>> >The Bible tells us that everyone sins.
>>
>> Which sounds like a preacher's self-serving invention to me.
>> First invent a disease (original sin) so you can then sell the cure
>> (salvation).
>
>In order for someone to invent a disease, somewhere along, there must have
>been an inventor.
In the case of the concept of Original Sin, it was Paul of Tarsus.
> The Bible is thousands of years old. The New Testament
>goes back to just a few years after the death of Christ.
A few decades.
> Two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness.
A pious claim. Not demonstrated or demonstrable.
>The others are compilations of reports by hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Or flatulent fabrications.
> Are you suggesting that the entireity of the
>Bible, along with the majority of modern civilization are the result of a
>hoax pulled off by twelve average joes (three of them were fishermen, one
>was a tax collector) and one ex-pharisee two thousand-odd years ago?
How did the 'average joes' and majority of civilization get into that
paragraph? It is extremely doubtful if anyone involved with Rabbi
Y'shua ben Yussef's Kingdom of God activism had anything at all to do
with the New Testament. The nearest in time to Y'shua is Paul, who
never met the man but who wrote in the sixth decade of the 1st
century. There was no need for Gospels in the first few decades of the
Christian churches (plural) development. The second coming was due any
minute, and any sectarian disputes would be settled by the returning
messiah.
Then came the revolution in Judea, the destruction of the temple, and
increasing fragmentation of Christianity into dozens of sects. That's
when the Gospels got written, when it was realized that the messiah
wasn't going to show up and arbitrate, and doctrine needed to be
written down for coming generations. But by whom? Where? When?
Nobody knows. For details see--
"Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth"
Burton L. Mack
[HarperSanFrancisco 1995]
>>
>> >This is evidenced in everyday life.
>>
>> I see no such evidence.
>
>You see no evidence of sin?
I see evidence of the CONCEPT of sin, but no agreement about what is
sin and what isn't.
>How, then, do you define sin?
There is no act so vile that some pervert does not think it good.
There is no act so innocent that some prude does not think it evil.
Sin is a subjective concept that like beauty, lies in the eye of the
beholder.
> Sin is a departure from the laws set down by God.
If there is a law set down by God, IMO, if is like the Law of Gravity,
or Ohm's Law. You can't possibly break it.
> If you just take the Ten Commandments, then
>everyone has broken one sometime in their life. I'm eighteen. I've broken
>about seven. If you put what Jesus says about hatred meaning you've murdered
>someone in your mind, and what he said about lust being adultery of the mind
>into the equation, I've broken all ten. I've broken some of them this very
>day. No doubt you have too.
Yet according to that law, I can go to your house, knock you over the
head, put you in chains and drag you over the border and enslave you
for life. That's a law from the same set of laws. Frankly I think
they're obsolete. Not bad for their time, but obsolete.
>> >It tells us that God hates sin, and must keep it far away from him.
>>
>> If God hates sin so much, why does he leave Satan running loose
>> instigating more?
>
>Because he offers Man an alternative.
Man's not adept enough at making his own alternatives? We need
supernatural help?
>God wants free sons, remember?
Pick a card...
>He wants them to be able to choose him or choose something else.
or I'll blow your head off...
> If there was
>no Satan, there would be no choice, and man would not be free.
No man would ever think of an evil deed by himself?
>> >As a result, Man, a sinner, is separated from the ultimate, Holy God.
>>
>> An omnipotent being who is angry because he can't have what he wants?
>> Nah! That's not credible!
>
>That's not what I said. I didn't say God was angry, but holy.
Yeah, but the Bible says angry.
> What that means in this context is that God is just.
But apparently has a really weird idea of justice.
Like punishing your kids for what you did.
> He wrote the laws, we broke them.
>We deserve a punishment. We owe retribution for our sins.
Yet this punishment is only inflicted on unbelievers.
Repentant believers don't get punished.
>That retribution is ultimate separation from God.
For eternity?
> Greedy evangelists happen, but there are many good
>evangelists out there who want you to find God, regardless of money.
The key point Austin, is that while there are indeed honest and
sincere evangelists, it is the crooked, money-grubbing kind that
invented the Christian religion in the first place! Foremost among
whom was that self-confessed liar, Paul.
> If you would find him, I believe I would weep for joy.
As Bernard Shaw remarked "The fact that a believer is happier than a
skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is
happier than a sober one."
>Also, Don't forget that that promise, stated in John 3:16, predates every
>modern evangelist at whom you point a finger by two thousand years.
Every modern evangelist, but not the ones who invented the Jesus of
the New Testament. Paul was a 1st century Jimmy Swaggart, make no
mistake. And the guy who wrote John was like as not one too.
>John wrote it down in prison, from memory of a youth spent with Jesus.
> What did he stand to gain but several more years in prison?
You need to read up on your history of the New Testament Austin.
That's a touching story, but it's just a story.
>> >Does this sound like a merciless God?
>>
>> Yes it does. Tease out your salvation algorithm a little further and
>> take a good look at it. The contrite sinner goes to heaven unpunished.
>> His victim, an unbeliever, gets eternal torment.
>
>Contrite is the wrong word. Repentant is.
If you like.
> Everyone has messed up.
But the guy that believed the wrong preacher doesn't get a break.
> I believe that Jesus died for all that sin,
Assuming of course that someone can justly pay for another's sins.
>An unbeliever has not asked forgiveness. He has stood before God all his
>life and gone his own way.
How can you stand before a deity that's hiding from you?
>He has fought God tooth and nail. His sins are
>not forgiven. It's too late to ask then. He's made his choice on earth, and
>must suffer the consequence. That consequence is separation from God in a
>black pit full of flame called Hell.
>The purpose of hell is to be a place separate from God. It exists where God
>is not. That is Hell. The utter blackness of being separated from light,
>hope, truth, and worst of all, love. Everything that is good, is with God.
>Away from Hell, as far away as possible.
No, you said a 'black pit full of flame '. Now why?
>> >Surely a God
>> >who loves mankind so much, despite their sin, that he sent his Son to die
>>>in their place,
>>
>> Jesus is dead?
>
>No. Jesus was raised from the dead three days after he died.
Then he didn't pay did he? The whole 'gift' of his son by God was a
charade, a fake, a rubber cheque.
>> > can not be the sadistical, human-hating God you paint him as.
>>
>> Surely he can. The Bible so describes him. Or is only part of the
>> Bible true? The nice parts, not the ones that say God murders little
>> children to punish their father?
>
>The entire Bible is true.
How can a self-contradictory document be true?
How can a document that disputes fact be true?
>Not just the mean parts. Not just the ones that
>give you trouble. Yes, God does what is just in his eyes. He deals out
>justice in a way we don't understand, because we don't see the world like he
>does.
So a Bible writer can portray God as brutal and sadistic, but he
really isn't? That's a big bucket of whitewash you've got there!
>He's not tame. We don't control him. We can only submit to his will or
>fight it. But there is another side you refuse to see. You see a God that
>punishes when it doesn't make sense.
No. Let's make it clear, God is not in the prisoner's box before this
little court of ours. What's on trial is the biblical concept of God.
I don't for a moment believe that any God there may be is anything
like the Bronze Age concept of God we find in the New Testament,
OR the Iron Age concept of God we find in the New.
> You refuse to also see the God who
>blesses and loves when it doesn't make sense.
Uhuh. I think he's a fiction too.
>God is called the Father. That
>is the perfect word. Your father punished you sometimes, when it didn't make
>sense. But he also did things for you when it was absolutely against what
>you thought was sense. He loved you, and he also punished you. God gives,
>and he takes away. Praise God for this.
That sounds nice until you read Genesis and see how God is supposed to
have treated Adam, his first child. Then it sounds rather hollow.
>
>> ## Faith means not wanting to know what is true. NIETZSCHE
>
>I dare say it takes a good deal of faith to believe there is no God, when
>alot of people disagree, wouldn't you?
Indeed. "The fool in his heart says there is no God" says the Bible.
I quite agree. But then i think the man who says there is a God to be
equally a fool. The fact is that we do not and cannot know. Ever.
>Mr. Ings, I will be praying for you.
Some atheists take umbrage when they are told that.
I never have, because I don't think anybody's listening.
## "God is dead"- Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead"- God
"Austin Johnson" <ajfiles@no-spam> wrote in message
news:IxILa.1088$IP6.49015@no-spam
> I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your last post. You say you believe in
the
> possibility of God, but not necessarily God, and especially not the God of
> the Bible. What are you then? Not quite an atheist. Do you consider
yourself
> an agnostic? I need to know to go any further.
> Austin
My friend you miss a critical element in reading Scripture. There are a
number of different "Christ"' in the Bible and certainly "Gods".
Think about it Austin.