Guest stumper Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> > wrote: > >> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>>>> even know what they are doing. >>>>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>>>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>>>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>>>> morons in that group. >>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>>>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>>>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>>>> believe in gods? >>>>> >>>>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>>>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>>>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>>>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>>>> >>>>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>>>> Almost a fighting word. >>>>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>>>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>>>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>>>> >>>>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>>>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>>>> >>>>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>>>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>>>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>>>> >>>>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>>>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>>>> >>>>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>>>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>>>> >>>> Good for you. >>>> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >>>> here at alt.atheism. >>>> >>>> I'm not interested in controlling >>>> what people think or how they think, >>>> but just how they behave here. >>> Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is >>> going to stop it anyhow. >>> >>> You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly >>> arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get >>> negative responses. >>> >>> And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the >>> fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >>>> Are you a physicalist? >>> What do I know? >>> >>> My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia >>> article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many >>> millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But >>> seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have >>> something in common at some level. >>> >>> Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily >>> influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same >>> degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know >>> of. >>> >>> But why on earth have awareness in that case? >>> >>> I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. >>> >> It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. >> >> God is better handled by social science >> than by natural science. >> >> My working hypothesis for this week is this: >> God is our world government in exile. >> >> If you wanna know whether it even exists, >> you can use the same scientific method >> you would use to establish that your government exists. > > In that case "God" becomes a name for the collective wishes of people. > This is not the way the word "God" is actually used by most people, > but I'm willing to go along. > > It might be that many people impute their wishes for an ideal world > government to something they call "God", but not all things said of > this or that notion of "God" come from anyone's notion of an ideal > world government. Also, not all notions of an ideal world government > are imputed to a "God". > > On top of that, people often feel themselves compelled by "God" into > courses of action that result in bitter conflict with people who have > other ideas of "God" -- or with people who have no personal idea of > "God". > > Does it exist? Not in any simple way, no. The meanings of words > drift around without regard for convenience. The word "god" or even > "God" is not something that you can make a sweeping generalization > about in that way, hoping to capture what is "essential". To do that > you have to restrict the application of the word to a narrower field. > > OR > > You might mean something else by "God is our world government in > exile". > > I have only reacted to one possible understanding of your vague yet > grand-sounding "working hypothesis". I am not going to react to all > the other things that you might possibly mean. > > You'll have to make yourself clearer. > Thank you. I'm working on it. My first working hypothesis is proposed mainly to understand God's mode of existence. As God cannot be found using natural science, I thought it might be found using social science. As soon as I look at God that way, it occurred to me that God might be rather like a government than a superman. It's not unusual to think of gods as a council. Greeks did so and Philistines as well. Actually I don't know much about political science. I vaguely remember reading several books concerning the anatomy of power. Anyhow, if anyone wants, she can use the model of government to understand the "establishment" of God and "functioning" of God, etc. It might not be a bad idea for me to read a textbook on political science now. -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:17:59 -0500, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote: - Refer: <s02h03h9g51mofg451d9a3nkgp70v41qgk@4ax.com> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >wrote: > >>Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>>>> even know what they are doing. >>>>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>>>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>>>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>>>> morons in that group. >>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>>>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>>>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>>>> believe in gods? >>>>> >>>>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>>>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>>>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>>>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>>>> >>>>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>>>> Almost a fighting word. >>>>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>>>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>>>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>>>> >>>>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>>>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>>>> >>>>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>>>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>>>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>>>> >>>>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>>>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>>>> >>>>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>>>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>>>> >>>> Good for you. >>>> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >>>> here at alt.atheism. >>>> >>>> I'm not interested in controlling >>>> what people think or how they think, >>>> but just how they behave here. >>> >>> Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is >>> going to stop it anyhow. >>> >>> You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly >>> arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get >>> negative responses. >>> >>> And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the >>> fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >>>> Are you a physicalist? >>> >>> What do I know? >>> >>> My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia >>> article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many >>> millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But >>> seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have >>> something in common at some level. >>> >>> Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily >>> influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same >>> degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know >>> of. >>> >>> But why on earth have awareness in that case? >>> >>> I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. >>> >> >>It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. >> >>God is better handled by social science >>than by natural science. >> >>My working hypothesis for this week is this: >>God is our world government in exile. >> >>If you wanna know whether it even exists, >>you can use the same scientific method >>you would use to establish that your government exists. > >In that case "God" becomes a name for the collective wishes of people. >This is not the way the word "God" is actually used by most people, >but I'm willing to go along. > >It might be that many people impute their wishes for an ideal world >government to something they call "God", but not all things said of >this or that notion of "God" come from anyone's notion of an ideal >world government. Also, not all notions of an ideal world government >are imputed to a "God". > >On top of that, people often feel themselves compelled by "God" into >courses of action that result in bitter conflict with people who have >other ideas of "God" -- or with people who have no personal idea of >"God". > >Does it exist? Not in any simple way, no. The meanings of words >drift around without regard for convenience. The word "god" or even >"God" is not something that you can make a sweeping generalization >about in that way, hoping to capture what is "essential". To do that >you have to restrict the application of the word to a narrower field. > >OR > >You might mean something else by "God is our world government in >exile". > >I have only reacted to one possible understanding of your vague yet >grand-sounding "working hypothesis". I am not going to react to all >the other things that you might possibly mean. > >You'll have to make yourself clearer. That is as lucid as he gets, I'm afraid. You will note a marked deterioration from here on in. -- Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message news:hoWdnZXtXII_NZvbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@ptd.net... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message >> news:pPydnZvgloRnZmLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net... >>> Do you have faith in reason? >> >> Only to the extent that love is subject to reason, for our Christian >> "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ >> propitiating our sins, not His, on the cross of Calvary. > > You can either try to make that understandable to all > or simple show what it means to all here. > ~Stumper > Christ already shows that, and you need to do some serious reading to find out what Christ is all about. See below how he explains the concept to a frankly sceptical Philip Pastor Frank "GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE: Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS." Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one. Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me should not abide in darkness." Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU." 1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE. 1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most secret thoughts. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message > news:hoWdnZXtXII_NZvbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@ptd.net... >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message >>> news:pPydnZvgloRnZmLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net... >>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>> Only to the extent that love is subject to reason, for our Christian >>> "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ >>> propitiating our sins, not His, on the cross of Calvary. >> You can either try to make that understandable to all >> or simple show what it means to all here. >> ~Stumper >> > Christ already shows that, and you need to do some serious reading to > find out what Christ is all about. See below how he explains the concept to > a frankly sceptical Philip > > Pastor Frank > > "GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE: > Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must > worship him in spirit and in truth." > Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth, > and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, > ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND > HAVE SEEN HIM." > Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." > Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast > thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; > and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am > in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak > not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS." > Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one. > Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes > in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees > Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever > believes in me should not abide in darkness." > Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when > the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of > God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo > there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU." > 1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE. > 1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. > GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. > Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one > another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. > Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, > if ye have love one to another. > Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another, > as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down > his life for his friends. > Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain > also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. > Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most > secret thoughts. > > > That's Jesus and just talks. Are you sure you are acting with love here? Actually you are doing much better than most here. Still, we can always do even better. -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Sam Washington Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message news:pan.2007.03.25.01.34.18.205214@com.mkbilbo... > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:24:34 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: > > > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >> news:pan.2007.03.20.18.11.32.694895@com.mkbilbo... > >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:10:09 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2007.03.18.05.28.41.317639@com.mkbilbo... >>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:14 +0800, Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is > >>>>> going to yank your number. >>>>> >>>>> Oh shut up Frank. >>>>> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 >>>>> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion >>>> >>>> Don't want us to rat on you and cause your precious atheist number to > >>> be > >>> yanked, do you? "Shut up" indeed!!!!! > >> > >> Flake, you are such an idiot. Why on earth would Mickey delist me? Do >> explain that one. >> (I could use the laugh) >> > Dildo, "you are such a moron". How about you advancing reality as some > > sort of ideal, worthy of worship? > > I see, so you admit you were totally full of shit about my a.a. number > being "yanked"? I'm new to these Newsgroups. My name is Sam Washington. I be the caretaker for this place where some white folks goes to play swim and talk. I takes care of the building and the grounds. I see names of folks I know who live in the community talking about god putting things on these newsgroups. You all please forgive me because I'm not to much up on this thing of fussing about God. Because I needs no outside evidence of my God. I knows he lives. I knows it in my heart. I got a problem, its about my job. They hired a Mexican and it scares me. I have this job for 15 years and now they hire this man because he will work cheaper, I hope God will let me keep my job, but if he closes one door he will open another. The boss say I got nothing to worry about because the Mexican is going to be my helper. I'm getting old. and cant do work like I use to. that's what the boss say. I have faith in God so I'm not worried about it. He will help me no matter what. I be 64 on my birthday Sam > -- > Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > ------------------------------------------------------------ > "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace > alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing > it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." > - H. L. Mencken > Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:14:31 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>>>>> even know what they are doing. >>>>>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>>>>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>>>>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>>>>> morons in that group. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>>>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>>>>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>>>>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>>>>> believe in gods? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>>>>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>>>>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>>>>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>>>>> Almost a fighting word. >>>>>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>>>>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>>>>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>>>>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>>>>> >>>>>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>>>>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>>>>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>>>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>>>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>>>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>>>>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>>>>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>>>>> >>>>> Good for you. >>>>> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >>>>> here at alt.atheism. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not interested in controlling >>>>> what people think or how they think, >>>>> but just how they behave here. >>>> Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is >>>> going to stop it anyhow. >>>> >>>> You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly >>>> arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get >>>> negative responses. >>>> >>>> And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the >>>> fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >>>>> Are you a physicalist? >>>> What do I know? >>>> >>>> My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia >>>> article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many >>>> millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But >>>> seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have >>>> something in common at some level. >>>> >>>> Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily >>>> influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same >>>> degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know >>>> of. >>>> >>>> But why on earth have awareness in that case? >>>> >>>> I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. >>>> >>> It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. >>> >>> God is better handled by social science >>> than by natural science. >>> >>> My working hypothesis for this week is this: >>> God is our world government in exile. >>> >>> If you wanna know whether it even exists, >>> you can use the same scientific method >>> you would use to establish that your government exists. >> >> In that case "God" becomes a name for the collective wishes of people. >> This is not the way the word "God" is actually used by most people, >> but I'm willing to go along. >> >> It might be that many people impute their wishes for an ideal world >> government to something they call "God", but not all things said of >> this or that notion of "God" come from anyone's notion of an ideal >> world government. Also, not all notions of an ideal world government >> are imputed to a "God". >> >> On top of that, people often feel themselves compelled by "God" into >> courses of action that result in bitter conflict with people who have >> other ideas of "God" -- or with people who have no personal idea of >> "God". >> >> Does it exist? Not in any simple way, no. The meanings of words >> drift around without regard for convenience. The word "god" or even >> "God" is not something that you can make a sweeping generalization >> about in that way, hoping to capture what is "essential". To do that >> you have to restrict the application of the word to a narrower field. >> >> OR >> >> You might mean something else by "God is our world government in >> exile". >> >> I have only reacted to one possible understanding of your vague yet >> grand-sounding "working hypothesis". I am not going to react to all >> the other things that you might possibly mean. >> >> You'll have to make yourself clearer. >> > >Thank you. >I'm working on it. > >My first working hypothesis is proposed >mainly to understand God's mode of existence. >As God cannot be found using natural science, >I thought it might be found using social science. Are you starting with the assumption that the word "god" must apply to something, and then trying to come up with a way to think about it according to which it makes sense to you? If so that seems like an odd and misguided approach. >As soon as I look at God that way, >it occurred to me that God might be >rather like a government than a superman. In which case why burden yourself with the concept of God. If your idea is that there is something that functions like a world government or council "in exile", I can only see the various notions of "God" clouding the issue. Maybe try starting with the idea of "culture" and _its mode of existence. But why, other than trying to think of some reasonable meaning for the word "God" would you think that such a council exists? It certainly is an interesting notion in its way, but if there is nothing other than ideas indicating that it is real, why try to work on the problem? Is it an abstract puzzle for the imagination? >It's not unusual to think of gods as a council. >Greeks did so and Philistines as well. Let us make man in our image. >Actually I don't know much about political science. >I vaguely remember reading several books >concerning the anatomy of power. > >Anyhow, if anyone wants, >she can use the model of government >to understand the "establishment" of God >and "functioning" of God, etc. How's that? Are you thinking in terms of representatives? Autocracy? Oligarchy? Full democracy with no need for leaders or representatives? >It might not be a bad idea for me >to read a textbook on political science now. Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:14:31 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> > wrote: > >> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:49:18 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that >>>>>>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it. >>>>>>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of >>>>>>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish >>>>>>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wonderful. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions? >>>>>>>>> Ok, and do the same for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is one that I think I see: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all >>>>>>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other >>>>>>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in >>>>>>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a >>>>>>>>> belief in what are called gods". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But >>>>>>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on >>>>>>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove >>>>>>>>> that it does not exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but >>>>>>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does >>>>>>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg, >>>>>>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here >>>>>>>> even know what they are doing. >>>>>>>> They are just hate-filled morons. >>>>>>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that >>>>>>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled >>>>>>> morons in that group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith" >>>>>>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism. >>>>>>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this >>>>>>> newsgroup (alt.atheism). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not >>>>>>> believe in gods? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I >>>>>>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians >>>>>>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god >>>>>>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American." >>>>>>>> Almost a fighting word. >>>>>>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who >>>>>>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like >>>>>>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to >>>>>>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that >>>>>>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that >>>>>>> is too much to ask, this being usenet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most people here have some interest in faith. >>>>>>>> If you cannot talk about faith >>>>>>>> without resorting to abusive language, >>>>>>>> you probably don't belong to this forum. >>>>>>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have faith in reason? >>>>>>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Good for you. >>>>>> Such attitude is all I'm asking for >>>>>> here at alt.atheism. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not interested in controlling >>>>>> what people think or how they think, >>>>>> but just how they behave here. >>>>> Well, personally I enjoy the acrimony at times. No voice of reason is >>>>> going to stop it anyhow. >>>>> >>>>> You might be interested to know that you often come across as highly >>>>> arrogant yourself. When you come across that way you are bound to get >>>>> negative responses. >>>>> >>>>> And such negative responses might distort your images of some of the >>>>> fine people here in alt.atheism ;> >>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism >>>>>> Are you a physicalist? >>>>> What do I know? >>>>> >>>>> My gut would have me be a neutral monist as described in the Wikipedia >>>>> article. There are clearly all kinds of phenomena -- surely many >>>>> millions of times more that I don't know of than that I do. But >>>>> seeing that they all happen in the same reality, they must have >>>>> something in common at some level. >>>>> >>>>> Despite that, all instances I know of what I call "mind" are easily >>>>> influenced by what I call "physis"; and not vice-versa to the same >>>>> degree. It does look like the physical supervenes in the cases I know >>>>> of. >>>>> >>>>> But why on earth have awareness in that case? >>>>> >>>>> I'm really not heavily invested in any metaphysical view. >>>>> >>>> It's about time for us to do a paradigm shift. >>>> >>>> God is better handled by social science >>>> than by natural science. >>>> >>>> My working hypothesis for this week is this: >>>> God is our world government in exile. >>>> >>>> If you wanna know whether it even exists, >>>> you can use the same scientific method >>>> you would use to establish that your government exists. >>> In that case "God" becomes a name for the collective wishes of people. >>> This is not the way the word "God" is actually used by most people, >>> but I'm willing to go along. >>> >>> It might be that many people impute their wishes for an ideal world >>> government to something they call "God", but not all things said of >>> this or that notion of "God" come from anyone's notion of an ideal >>> world government. Also, not all notions of an ideal world government >>> are imputed to a "God". >>> >>> On top of that, people often feel themselves compelled by "God" into >>> courses of action that result in bitter conflict with people who have >>> other ideas of "God" -- or with people who have no personal idea of >>> "God". >>> >>> Does it exist? Not in any simple way, no. The meanings of words >>> drift around without regard for convenience. The word "god" or even >>> "God" is not something that you can make a sweeping generalization >>> about in that way, hoping to capture what is "essential". To do that >>> you have to restrict the application of the word to a narrower field. >>> >>> OR >>> >>> You might mean something else by "God is our world government in >>> exile". >>> >>> I have only reacted to one possible understanding of your vague yet >>> grand-sounding "working hypothesis". I am not going to react to all >>> the other things that you might possibly mean. >>> >>> You'll have to make yourself clearer. >>> >> Thank you. >> I'm working on it. >> >> My first working hypothesis is proposed >> mainly to understand God's mode of existence. >> As God cannot be found using natural science, >> I thought it might be found using social science. > > Are you starting with the assumption that the word "god" must apply to > something, and then trying to come up with a way to think about it > according to which it makes sense to you? If so that seems like an > odd and misguided approach. > >> As soon as I look at God that way, >> it occurred to me that God might be >> rather like a government than a superman. > > In which case why burden yourself with the concept of God. If your > idea is that there is something that functions like a world government > or council "in exile", I can only see the various notions of "God" > clouding the issue. Maybe try starting with the idea of "culture" and > _its mode of existence. > > But why, other than trying to think of some reasonable meaning for the > word "God" would you think that such a council exists? It certainly > is an interesting notion in its way, but if there is nothing other > than ideas indicating that it is real, why try to work on the problem? > Is it an abstract puzzle for the imagination? > >> It's not unusual to think of gods as a council. >> Greeks did so and Philistines as well. > > Let us make man in our image. > >> Actually I don't know much about political science. >> I vaguely remember reading several books >> concerning the anatomy of power. >> >> Anyhow, if anyone wants, >> she can use the model of government >> to understand the "establishment" of God >> and "functioning" of God, etc. > > How's that? Are you thinking in terms of representatives? Autocracy? > Oligarchy? Full democracy with no need for leaders or > representatives? > A new working hypothesis: God is a society of Christian faiths. It does not exist in the way expected by humans. It does not do miracles. It is not a supernatural being. It simply works through human beings. It does not even exist outside of human beings. It does have a nice recursive ring to it, doesn't it? -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "William Mechlenburg" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2FFIh.4475$m7.4016@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:JPzIh.2971$nV1.2599@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message > > news:QvKdnUc3MaTsA3HYnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com... > > > Of course there is "evidence". > > > Ask any believer. > > > His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" -- > > > created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L. > > > > > Martin Rees identifies six numbers that if they were > > varied just a tiny little bit, there would be no universe, > > no matter and no life. He calls this a brute fact . This > > fine tuning implies a creator who tweaked the numbers. > > In order to around this discovery, Rees conjectures > > up infinite numbers of universes each with its own set > > of numbers. Our universe in a sense won the lottery. > > But the _simplest_ explanation for this fine tuning, is > > the hand of a creator. > > Thus this brute fact is hard evidence of a creator God. > > > This is not evidence of anything. > > What created this magnificent creator??? Oh, he always was and always will > be. > > Maybe the Universe always was and always will be. > This is not true. Scientist from the 1920s have infered based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity that the Universe had a beginning. This fact is accepted by virtually all professionals in the field of astronomy. Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? > > Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 H. Wm. Esque wrote: > "William Mechlenburg" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:2FFIh.4475$m7.4016@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:JPzIh.2971$nV1.2599@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message > > > news:QvKdnUc3MaTsA3HYnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > Of course there is "evidence". > > > > Ask any believer. > > > > His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" -- > > > > created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L. > > > > > > > Martin Rees identifies six numbers that if they were > > > varied just a tiny little bit, there would be no universe, > > > no matter and no life. He calls this a brute fact . This > > > fine tuning implies a creator who tweaked the numbers. > > > In order to around this discovery, Rees conjectures > > > up infinite numbers of universes each with its own set > > > of numbers. Our universe in a sense won the lottery. > > > But the _simplest_ explanation for this fine tuning, is > > > the hand of a creator. > > > Thus this brute fact is hard evidence of a creator God. > > > > > This is not evidence of anything. > > > > What created this magnificent creator??? Oh, he always was and always will > > be. > > > > Maybe the Universe always was and always will be. > > > This is not true. Scientist from the 1920s have infered based upon > Einstein's general theory of relativity that the Universe had a beginning. > This fact is accepted by virtually all professionals in the field of > astronomy. > Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? It's accepted that before the Big Bang, it is impossible to know anything. That does NOT mean the Universe didn't exist before the expansion of the singularity; it only means that at present we can't know anything about it. The answer to that isn't "GOD;" it's "I don't know." Now address the question: if "the creator" could have always existed, what prevents the Universe from being able to always have existed? Quote
Guest Andrew Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On 2007-04-08 12:26:02 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said: > > H. Wm. Esque wrote: >> "William Mechlenburg" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:2FFIh.4475$m7.4016@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >>> >>> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>> news:JPzIh.2971$nV1.2599@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >>>> >>>> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >>>> news:QvKdnUc3MaTsA3HYnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>> Of course there is "evidence". >>>>> Ask any believer. >>>>> His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" -- >>>>> created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L. >>>>> >>>> Martin Rees identifies six numbers that if they were >>>> varied just a tiny little bit, there would be no universe, >>>> no matter and no life. He calls this a brute fact . This >>>> fine tuning implies a creator who tweaked the numbers. >>>> In order to around this discovery, Rees conjectures >>>> up infinite numbers of universes each with its own set >>>> of numbers. Our universe in a sense won the lottery. >>>> But the _simplest_ explanation for this fine tuning, is >>>> the hand of a creator. >>>> Thus this brute fact is hard evidence of a creator God. >>>> >>> This is not evidence of anything. >>> >>> What created this magnificent creator??? Oh, he always was and always will >>> be. >>> >>> Maybe the Universe always was and always will be. >>> >> This is not true. Scientist from the 1920s have infered based upon >> Einstein's general theory of relativity that the Universe had a beginning. >> This fact is accepted by virtually all professionals in the field of >> astronomy. >> Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? > > It's accepted that before the Big Bang, it is impossible to know > anything. That does NOT mean the Universe didn't exist before the > expansion of the singularity; it only means that at present we can't > know anything about it. The answer to that isn't "GOD;" it's "I don't > know." Actually, the phrase "before the Big Bang" probably doesn't mean anything, as time began at the Big Bang as well > > Now address the question: if "the creator" could have always existed, > what prevents the Universe from being able to always have existed? Nothing, unless you accept the evidence of Science. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 02:11:22 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" <@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> Maybe the Universe always was and always will be. >This is not true. Scientist from the 1920s have infered based upon >Einstein's general theory of relativity that the Universe had a beginning. >This fact is accepted by virtually all professionals in the field of >astronomy. >Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? The Big Bang was the beginning of something. It may have been merely a phase transition of an existing universe. Or the rebound of the Big Crunch. Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 02:11:22 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" <@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >>>Maybe the Universe always was and always will be. > > >>This is not true. Scientist from the 1920s have infered based upon >>Einstein's general theory of relativity that the Universe had a beginning. ===>That is such a nonsensical statement. Things change from one moment to the next. Things get transformed through the natural process of the Cosmos. This planet had a "beginning", from something else. That "something else" had a "beginning" from something before, etc. EVERYTHING has a "beginning" -- from something else. The Cosmos -- substance and its process -- is eternal. What emerges from the process is temporary. >>This fact is accepted by virtually all professionals in the field of >>astronomy. >>Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? > > > The Big Bang was the beginning of something. It may have been merely > a phase transition of an existing universe. Or the rebound of the Big > Crunch. ===>Whatever. The important issue is that it did not all come FROM NOTHING. Everything comes from something pre-existing. -- L. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:45EC9870.3299@armory.com... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> >> Christ tells me not to judge people. All I am allowed is to judge >> actions. > > First we kill all the amateur lawyers. > I don't think that Jesus meant that you could seperate the two, > he just didn't tell you because he expected you to understand what > he wa saying, your version is just YOUR ignorant wish-fulfillment!! > Steve > That is why the Christian church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Because of that, there are no perfect people in any Christian church. But there are lots of patients in our hospital for sinners, who are addicted to negativity and who love to tell the other inmates how much they fall short of expectations. LOL You try calling people names before they have been found guilty based on lots of evidence, and you will be the one in contempt of court and judged an "amateur lawyer" in need of prosecution. Jesus made it clear, that merely calling people "Raca" or "Fool" will require you to face judgment. See below Pastor Frank Jesus in Mt:5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:00:15 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com... >> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: >> >>> > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the >>> > > earth? >>> > >>> > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he >>> > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too >>> > cute for words! >>> > >>> > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not >>> > cute at all, it's just ridiculous. >>> >>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. Why >>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he >>> returns to judge the earth? >> >> Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous. >> Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the >> threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you >> come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by >> claiming a monster is in the closet. >> Does any of this make sense to you? >> > Thanks for proving my point about atheists being beset by cynicism and >paranoia, if not fear. I mean what "threat" is there in discussing matters >with Jesus Christ Himself? But then atheism leads to feeling surrounded by >liars and being subjected to threats. There is no "threat" in discussing matters with Jesus Christ himself. But the proposed discussion was to take place in the context of the time of judgment -- eternal damnation or eternal salvation. It's kind of like saying "why don't you discuss it with the lynch mob when they come to hang you". Please don't pretend that there is not that feeling of inevatibility and futility to it. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:4emj23hp9grds977i74039k0gjs1lm5kgh@4ax.com... > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:00:15 +0800, "Pastor Frank" > <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >> >> Thanks for proving my point about atheists being beset by cynicism and >>paranoia, if not fear. I mean what "threat" is there in discussing matters >>with Jesus Christ Himself? But then atheism leads to feeling surrounded by >>liars and being subjected to threats. > > There is no "threat" in discussing matters with Jesus Christ himself. > But the proposed discussion was to take place in the context of the > time of judgment -- eternal damnation or eternal salvation. > It's kind of like saying "why don't you discuss it with the lynch mob > when they come to hang you". > Please don't pretend that there is not that feeling of inevatibility > and futility to it. > You sound like that demon whom Christ confronts and who says: I know who you are. You are the Son of the Most High. Are you come to punish us before our time? Yes. For some there is "that feeling of inevitability", for they already have judged themselves as unworthy. It's the result of a complete misunderstanding, for no one who comes to Jesus is rejected. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:43:56 -0400, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >news:4emj23hp9grds977i74039k0gjs1lm5kgh@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:00:15 +0800, "Pastor Frank" >> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for proving my point about atheists being beset by cynicism and >>>paranoia, if not fear. I mean what "threat" is there in discussing matters >>>with Jesus Christ Himself? But then atheism leads to feeling surrounded by >>>liars and being subjected to threats. >> >> There is no "threat" in discussing matters with Jesus Christ himself. >> But the proposed discussion was to take place in the context of the >> time of judgment -- eternal damnation or eternal salvation. >> It's kind of like saying "why don't you discuss it with the lynch mob >> when they come to hang you". >> Please don't pretend that there is not that feeling of inevatibility >> and futility to it. >> > You sound like that demon whom Christ confronts and who says: I know who >you are. You are the Son of the Most High. Are you come to punish us before >our time? > Yes. For some there is "that feeling of inevitability", for they already >have judged themselves as unworthy. It's the result of a complete >misunderstanding, for no one who comes to Jesus is rejected. Please. It was not you who first suggested such a discussion. It was a person who -- as far as I can tell -- thought that such a discussion could only happen after all judgement had been decided. From someone with such a view it is indeed a "fuck you" suggestion -- like suggesting that one discuss one's crime with one's executioner. Maybe you think that discussion and persuasion after Christ has come would have some point. Do you? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.