/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again... Re: Mark 16:18 / Date > 4 March 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.chistian, alt.christnet, alt.bible.prophecy, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.bible, alt.atheism /
.
>> John P. Boatwright previously wrote:
>>  =======================================================
>>   the Old Testament plainly states that the serpents are
>>   the WICKED, their POISON: the LYING.
>>  =======================================================
.
> Chuck replied: Nice dodge.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Chuck, it's not a "dodge" at all . . .
John's view of the matter is entirely consistent with the Spirit of the Word ... And *therefore* IS valid!
.
> That's one of the few nice things about the Bible;
.
 It's good to see an atheist unbeliever admit that there are a "few nice things about the Bible" for a change ...  :)
.
> you can interpret it to mean anything you want it to mean.
.
 The open-endedness of literature is hardly confined to scripture. In fact it was the classical Greeks who invented the allegorical approach to the ancient mythologies (eg. Homer, Hesiod, etc) because a literal reading of the texts was deemed inappropriate to the developing religious consciousness of the more enlightened Greek philosophers and teachers. Check it out.
.
> Of course, that also makes it completely useless. -- Chuck
.
 Well, if that's the case, then we might as well toss the entire sum total of religious *and* secular literature into the trash bin along with it, because people are well capable of interpreting *anything* to mean anything they want it to mean!!!
.
 Hey Chuck, yer ignorance and bias are showing through ...
.
 Is that an accurate interpretation, or what?

P.S. Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, "Take note, this child is appointed for the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul too), so that the thoughts from many hearts will be revealed." -- Luke 2:34-35/NETbible

/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again... Re: Mark 16:18 / Date > 8 March 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.atheism, alt.bible.prophecy, sci.skeptic, alt.bible, alt.religion.chistian, alt.christnet, talk.atheism /
.
>> erasmian answered: Dear Chuck, it's not a "dodge" at all. John's view of the matter is
>> entirely consistent with the Spirit of the Word ... And *therefore* IS valid!
.
> On 6Mar00 C&C replied: Please provide me with some evidence that consistency with "the
> Spirit of the Word" equates to validity. Wait, I'm sorry. "Spirit of the Word" is just meaningless
> babble. Evidence does not apply.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Chuck, you're quite right; evidence does not apply. Consistency and validity have to do with the underlying Logos (or rational structure) that is the very essence of both the intelligible Cosmos *and* the Word of God (as manifested within and through the sacred text).
.
>> The open-endedness of literature is hardly confined to scripture.
.
> Chuck: So what?
.
 So if you plan to reject scripture on that basis, then you'll have to chuck out your science books, and your atheist manifestoes, along with it. That is, IF you wish to be logically consistent and/or just plain honest. Oh wait, I'm sorry. "Honesty" is just meaningless babble. Virtue is irrelevant, and does not apply.
.
>> In fact it was the classical Greeks who invented the allegorical approach to the ancient mythologies (eg.
>> Homer, Hesiod, etc) because a literal reading of the texts was deemed inappropriate to the developing
>> religious consciousness of the more enlightened Greek philosophers and teachers. Check it out. <snip>
.
> Christianity _is_ ancient mythology.
.
 No, actually Christianity is one of the leading religions in our common (and ever-shrinking) global village. Mythology is simply one element among many others that go into the complex systems of religious expression and sentiment. To reduce the whole of the Faith to one of its elements is both illogical and unscientific in the extreme. But you pagan atheist unbelievers are supposed to be the rational and sensible ones, right Chuck?
.
> Just because you happen to care for that particular brand of mythology doesn't
> mean your god is any more real than Zeus.
.
 My God doesn't need my assistance to make him real. But Zeus is merely a run-of-the-mill hero-type God; a projection of human aspirations and ambitions. He is not real because he *cannot* be real. The Father of Lights, however, cannot be cast in bronze or stone because he is far bigger than all human aspirations and ambitions. Indeed, his name says it all: I AM THAT I AM!
.
>> Well, if that's the case, then we might as well toss the entire sum total of religious *and*
>> secular literature into the trash bin along with it, because people are well capable of
>> interpreting *anything* to mean anything they want it to mean!!!
.
> Chuck: Four asterisks and three exclamation points. There must be something to this paragraph.
.
 That's what I thought too ...  :)
.
>> Hey Chuck, yer ignorance and bias are showing through ...
.
> Put up or shut up. Show me where religion has made a contribution to scientific theory.
.
 Do the names Newton, Keplar, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein mean anything to you? All these great men of science believed in God (although in different ways, of course), but I guess you know better than all those guys, eh Chuck?
.
> If your god created the universe but can't tell you how it works, he isn't worth much.  -- Chuck
.
 Well Chuck, I don't see that the Father of Lights has to explain anything to me, or you, or anyone else. So I'd say that the value of the Creator probably lies in other areas ...  Areas that are well beyond your reach, sad to say.

/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again... Re: Mark 16:18 / Date > 10 March 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet /
.
>> erasmian previously wrote: <snipmuch> But you pagan atheist unbelievers are supposed to be the
>> rational and sensible ones, right Chuck? <snip>
.
> On 8Mar00 Carl Wilson wrote: Just a quick question....  What is a "pagan atheist"?
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Carl, a pagan is an irreligious or non-religious person, an atheist is a person who *believes* that there is no God (or gods), and an unbeliever is a person who willfully rejects the Good News. Therefore a 'pagan atheist' is simply anyone who is incapable of seeing any value in religion in general, while a 'pagan atheist unbeliever' is one of these who also takes a stand against the Faith.

/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again... Re: Mark 16:18 / [#4] / Date > 12 March 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.chistian, alt.bible, alt.christnet /
.
> On 8Mar00 C&C replied: <snipsome> There is no evidence to warrant a truth-claim for your premise
> that god exists. Therefore, while your conclusion may follow from your premises, your argument can
> only be valid but not sound. So either provide evidence for your truth-claim or stop bothering me.
.
 erasmian answers: But Chuck, you just said that there is no evidence for the premise that God exists (and I quite agree). Then you immediately turn around and demand that I provide it! Obviously you are missing the point that faith in God is based upon *faith* ... and NOT upon so-called evidence.
.
>> erasmian previously wrote: <snipsome> So if you plan to reject scripture on that basis, then you'll
>> have to chuck out your science books, and your atheist manifestoes, along with it. That is, IF you
>> wish to be logically consistent and/or just plain honest. Oh wait, I'm sorry. "Honesty" is just
>> meaningless babble. Virtue is irrelevant, and does not apply.
.
> Chuck: Science strives for objectivity. At best, religion can only claim intersubjectivity, as long as all of
> its claims are internally consistent, which, on its face, is ridiculous. So I think I'll keep my science books
> and my "atheist manifestoes," whatever the hell that means.
.
 Objectivity does not preclude the necessity of faith. Even scientists must believe in things that cannot be proved; eg. the "eternal" consistency and universality of physical laws, and the "necessary" connections between them (cf. David Hume on causality). Moreover, the striving for objectivity clearly does not prevent some scientists from "cheating". 4X: the recently discovered half-bird, half-reptile fossil remains have been found to be a hoax; (only the latest in a long series of fossil frauds). Thus if "objective" scientists can't find the evidence they need to prove their "objective" theories, they will simply manufacture them. Putting your faith in scientists is thus hardly much of an improvement over faith in God.
.
> And honesty is just meaningless babble,
.
 I just knew you'd say that ...  :)
.
> a construct devised by men to keep from being taken advantage of.
.
 If you mean that honesty is good for people in general, then I quite agree!
.
> Chuck: There is nothing objective about ethics that would make me believe that such
> a thing called "honesty" actually exists.
.
 I fail to see how you can even talk to anyone without assuming that what they say honestly represents how they think and feel about things. I assume that you are being honest about the things you say, and I would hope that you are making the same assumption about me. Thus honesty not only exists, but it is the first foundation for *all* genuine communication and reasoning. Indeed, logic in general is nothing more complicated than the art of being (ruthlessly) honest.
.
>> tx: <snip> No, actually Christianity is one of the leading religions in our common
>> (and ever-shrinking) global village. <snip>
.
> Chuck: And at one time Alexander the Great nearly ruled the entire world.
.
 A goodly chunk of it, to be sure; but that didn't last very long. Once the great warrior had run out of wars and battles to fight he promptly up and died of boredom. I guess life just ain't worth living when you're not bashing the enemies heads hither and yon. Without the *challenge*, you see, life became meaningless to him; for he could not see himself as anything other than a conqueror (obviously a fatal weakness in anything other than a mere military man).
.
> Did Zeus exist then, when a lot of people believed in him, and not now?
.
 Objectively, he had no real independent existence. But since many people then did believe in him, he certainly did have a kind of cultural or psychological existence within the context of the lives of those people. Today, however, Zeus has no such influence over people, and hence is become merely another curious cultural artifact from the ancient world.
.
> I enjoy playing this "numbers" game.
.
 Huh?
.
> I suppose Hinduism is true, since it is also a leading religion.
.
 There are a lot of religious, spiritual, ethical and even philosophical truths within the vast and varied systems and literature that go into Hinduism, and so its "truth" is contingent upon convergence with reality (as we now know it). Of course, the same applies to any religion (including the Faith).
.
> And Islam, don't forget that.
.
 I'm trying not to.
.
> Buddha too has a lot of followers.
.
 Buddhism is unique in that it is based upon psychological and philosophical principles, rather than faith as such (4X: suffering stems from craving). This is why the Middle Way is so eminently sensible; ie. because it consciously and deliberately avoids the extremes of religious faith, sentiment, and expression.
.
> I guess that means that they are all true.
.
 They all contain some measure of wisdom and truth because they all tap into the Universal Logos (which we may say is the meaningful coherence of perceived realities) that provides structure and meaning to all reality. We cannot simply say that this religion is true, while that religion is false. All religions have *some* measure of truth (and therefore some positive value), but they all fall short for being contaminated by human stupidity, fallibility, and alienation.
.
 "Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?" says the LORD. "I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices of rams and the fat from steers. The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want. When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this — animals trampling on my courtyards? Don't bring anymore meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable. You observe new moon festivals, sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations. I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I'm tired of carrying." -- Isaiah 1:11-14 / NETbible
.
>> e: Mythology is simply one element among many others that go into the complex systems of religious
>> expression and sentiment. To reduce the whole of the Faith to one of its elements is both illogical
>> and unscientific in the extreme. ...
.
> Chuck: Claim without support. <sigh> No different than the rest of your nonsensical post ...
.
 It's not a claim, but rather an easily observable fact. Religions have not just mythology, but also ritual, philosophy, theology, ethics, cosmology, and so on. To reduce all of these things to mere mythology is *very* irrational.
.
>> But you pagan atheist unbelievers are supposed to be the rational and sensible ones, right Chuck?
.
> Right, if such a thing as a "pagan atheist unbeliever" existed.
.
 Just look into any mirror, Chuck, and you'll see the evidence for my "claims".
.
> I think the term you're looking for is "heathen."
.
 LOL ... A stinkweed by any other name would smell as sweet ...  :)
.
>> e: My God doesn't need my assistance to make him real. But Zeus is merely a run-of-the-mill
>> hero-type God; a projection of human aspirations and ambitions.
.
> Chuck: LOL. I still fail to see the difference, but maybe that's because you haven't given me any.
> Does your "logic" sound right even to yourself? "Merely a run-of-the-mill hero-type God ..."  LOL
> "a projection of human aspirations and ambitions ..."  LOL  I'll stop when you get around to
> explaining the difference between your god and Zeus!
.
 The difference is that "my God" revealed himself within the concrete world of time&space through our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you see the difference between fiction and fact? Jesus of Nazareth was a real actual historical person, and not merely a narrative character. Or do you suppose (as some do) that there never was any such person?
.
>> e: He [ie. Zeus] is not real because he *cannot* be real.
.
> Chuck: LOL. Still no difference, but a lot of similarities.
.
 It's true that in the earliest stages of the ongoing revelation, the Lord of Hosts bore some resemblance to storm gods such as Thor and Zeus and Set, but time and tide bore the Heavenly Father far beyond these very limited conceptions of deity.
.
>> The Father of Lights, however, cannot be cast in bronze or stone because he is far bigger
>> than all human aspirations and ambitions. Indeed, his name says it all: I AM THAT I AM!
.
> Is this your evidence? Circular reasoning?
.
 I can do little more than point to the revelation already given. It is not evidence as you would have it, but then we are already agreed that there is no such evidence as would satisfy unbelievers.
.
>>> Chuck previously wrote: <snip> Put up or shut up. Show me where
>>> religion has made a contribution to scientific theory. <snip>
.
>> e: Do the names Newton, Keplar, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein mean anything to you?
>> All these great men of science believed in God (although in different ways, of course), but I
>> guess you know better than all those guys, eh Chuck?
.
> Chuck: LOL. Please go back and read my original post.
.
 Do I have to?  :)
.
> The progress of science occurs because men of science did it themselves.
.
 I disagree. Science is simply one aspect of the ever-increasing rationalization that is the driving force behind all human history for the last million years and more. Science is thus a logical extension of that process of rationalization that shapes all cultures and civilizations. Read Max Weber for the details on all this.
.
> Religion, however, should have had a head start on science because your god knew
> everything all along. Why then hasn't religion yielded any scientific progress?
.
 It's just a question of method, Chuck. You don't expect a florist to fix your transmission when it falls off your car. Neither can you validly expect a priest to chart human DNA. Oh, wait a minute, Gregor Mendel was a priest, wasn't he? He certainly made a big contribution to the field of heredity/genetics. So I guess we're both wrong!
.
> From from leading the way,
.
 Far from leading the way ... ???
.
> men of god have been far outpaced by men of science in understanding the "mind of god."
> And now, most of the understanding of this "mind of god" is being done by atheists!
.
 You mean philosophers? Cosmologists? Carl Sagan perhaps? ...
Just who are these atheists who "understand" the mind of God?
.
> So if your god just sits on his ass and refuses to pull his own weight, then he's worthless.
.
 If you say so, Chuck ...  :)
.
> And even worse, he created the whole damn thing in the first place!
> What a worthless, lazy-assed shmuck.
.
 Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
.
>> Well Chuck, I don't see that the Father of Lights has to explain anything to me, or you,
>> or anyone else. <snip>
.
> Good thing. Because he's remained silent since he farted out the universe.
> Maybe he's embarrassed. -- Chuck
.
 With guys like you constantly attacking him, it's little wonder that he's embarrassed. He's probably thinking that maybe he should have made woman first!

/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again... Re: Mark 16:18 / [#5] / 
/ Newsgroups > alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet / Date > 13 March 2000 /
.
>> erasmian answers: Dear Carl, a pagan is an irreligious or non-religious person, an atheist is a person
>> who *believes* that there is no God (or gods), and an unbeliever is a person who willfully rejects the
>> Good News. Therefore a 'pagan atheist' is simply anyone who is incapable of seeing any value in religion
>> in general, while a 'pagan atheist unbeliever' is one of these who also takes a stand against the Faith.
.
> On 10Mar00 Dominion in a rather feeble attempt to outwit the cyber-prophet wrote:
> Jesus Creepy Crawly Christ man, go buy yourself a dictionary.
.
 erasmian sayeth: Dear Dominion, there's really no need for such drastic measures. You see, I already have a dictionary. It's a pocket-book edition entitled 'The Random House Dictionary' via 1980. ... Wut? You don't seriously believe that a prophet and scholar could get by without a dictionary, do you?
.
> Why is it that theist always have to redefine words to make their point?
.
 Well, I don't know about always, but sometimes it *is* necessary to "redefine" (which is to say: clarify) the meanings of certain words that have been (shall we say) *misused* over the centuries. But (in answer to your query) I'd say that theists *don't* "always have to redefine words to make their point" ... So there!
.
> Is it that God is not comfortable with english?
.
 God is perfectly comfortable with English; as he is with every other language in the world. That's why the Word of God is translated into more languages that any other book in the world, and remains the number-one best-seller of all time! ... Go Scriptures! :)
.
> A pagan is not an irreligious person you nit.
.
 Oh yeah?
.
> Most pagans I know are quite religious, depressingly so.
.
 LOL ... I'll bet!
.
> Just because you don't like their religion does not make it non-religious,
.
 A non-religious religion would certainly be an unusual thing alright.
.
> except to fundy idiots like yourself.
.
 There you go jumping to unfounded conclusions again, Dominion. After blasting fundies for their various excesses and shortcomings for some time, there are now more than a few evangelical types who are well aware that the cyber-prophet is neither Fundy nor Cat nor anything in between, but rather something "new" (which is to say: something old); a prophet after the manner of the ancient ones ... well, sortta ... :)
.
> Nor can you say that a non-belief = belief.
.
 And just when have I ever said that non-belief is the equivalent of belief? ... Wut? You like putting your own words in other peoples mouths, eh? ... Oh that's *very* logical alright!
.
> Unless of course your a fundy idiot.
.
 Or a silly atheist who fancies that doubt and disbelief are the very pinnacle of logical thought!
.
> Not that I think that this will make an impression on you.
.
 Oh, you made an impression alright, Dominion. Alas, my natural Christian reluctance to insult you forbids me from describing the specific nature of that impression ...  :)
.
> You theist are rather dense when it comes to logical thought. -- Dominion
.
 Yeah, gee, I bet that it's a real comforting thought knowing that all them dum-theists are so stupid and illogical all the time already.
.
 btw: According to my dictionary, the word 'pagan' is a noun that refers to: 1. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. 2. an irreligious person ... Hey! Ain't that what I said? ... Why yes it is! ... Imagine that!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 10Mar00 robin hull wrote: Pagan, as I understand it, is derived from paganus (a country dweller).
> This was adopted by early christians as a pejorative term referring to earlier mythologies.
.
 erasmian replies: Dear robin, I'm sure that you're on the right track here. Even now the word 'pagan' is quite useful "as a pejorative term". That's why I like it so much! ... :)
.
> Literally, I suppose you could use the term in reference to a rural atheist :-)
.
 Sorry, won't work these days, as there are no atheists in rural areas round these parts. Most of them congregate in the cities; where they can gather round the big cheese and squeak together in glorious unison and harmony ...
.
> The opinions contained in this document are in no way expressed.
.
 Oh, that's what they all say! :D
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> erasmian answers: <snip> Dear Carl, a pagan is an irreligious or non-religious person, an atheist is
>> a person who *believes* that there is no God (or gods), <snip>
.
> On 10Mar00 Peter Walker replied: And erasmian is full of shit.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Peter, you wish!
.
 Oh hey, you're the sort that likes to get straight to the point and no BS about it, eh? Very good!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> erasmian answers: <snip> Dear Carl, a pagan is an irreligious or non-religious person, an atheist is
>> a person who *believes* that there is no God (or gods), <snip remainder>
.
> On 11Mar00 Petteri Sulonen wrote: Wow. Talk about wacky definitions ... -- Petteri
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Petteri, thx. I'm just a wacky kind of cyber-prophet after all. Just me and my wacky dictionary ...

/ Topic > Re: Watch your step, atheism's crumbling again ... Re: Mark 16:18 / Date > 23 March 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.chistian, sci.skeptic, alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.christnet /
.
> On 14Mar00 Lorrill Buyens wrote: On 12Mar00, in an attempt to get into the Guinness
> Book of World Records, erasmian ate seventeen helpings of lutefisk,
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Lorrill, wuts a lutefisk?  :)
.
> then belched:
.
 Must be something that's makes you belch ...
.
>>> On 8Mar00 C&C replied: <snipsome> There is no evidence to warrant a truth-claim for your premise
>>> that god exists. Therefore, while your conclusion may follow from your premises, your argument can
>>> only be valid but not sound. So either provide evidence for your truth-claim or stop bothering me.
.
>> erasmian answered: But Chuck, you just said that there is no evidence for the premise that God exists
>> (and I quite agree). Then you immediately turn around and demand that I provide it! Obviously you are
>> missing the point that faith in God is based upon *faith* ... and NOT upon so-called evidence.
.
> LB: If all you need is faith,
.
 Who said 'all you need is faith'? Even before there was a Christian religion, it was clearly recognized that 'faith' is but one of the three cardinal virtues: faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is not faith, but rather love (see Paul's epistles for details). The reason for this is that love is at the heart (so to speak) of the greatest commandment (being also the sum and substance of the Law and the prophets (as our good Lord clearly and consistently taught)).
.
> to paraphrase the Beatles,
.
 The Beatles teachings are based upon the idea that 'all you need is love'. They got this idea, of course, from the faith of all true believers. So what they did was to steal a pearl of truth from the Word, and proceed to distort it so as to make it appear that their gospel of 'love alone' is a new and improved version of the Christian Faith, suitable to one and all, whether believer or unbeliever, whether pagan or Christian, whether one is religious or not, whether one is spiritual or not, whether one is mystical or not, etc etc. The point is that everyone can embrace and practice the all-inclusive (albeit incredibly simplistic) gospel of these pathetic modern idols (ie. the fabulous and wondrous rock stars). Yes, everyone *can* embrace it (since it is pabulum for babes), but kindly note the fact that the vast majority of people, in fact, neither embrace it, nor practice it. Perhaps it is merely a luxury that only the exceedingly wealthy and exceedingly arrogant can afford? That would be my first guess. In any case, the Faith does not even teach that 'faith, hope, and love' alone are enough. And although there are *many* anti-christs and false teachers among the churches (and peoples of the World) eager to pander to the childish delusions of the Many, true believers can never be deceived by the lies and corruptions of these smurf-christians and sundry "religious" atheists.
.
 I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately. But concerning the one who lacks such things — he is blind. -- 2Peter 1:3-9 / NETbible
.
> then *anyone's* deity is just as valid as yours - mine, for example.
.
 I think maybe *NOT*; (see 2Peter 1:3-9).
.
>> e: <snip> 4X: the recently discovered half-bird, half-reptile fossil remains have been
>> found to be a hoax; (only the latest in a long series of fossil frauds).
.
> LB: "Long?"  I count three...
.
 I count *more* than three ...
.
>> Thus if "objective" scientists can't find the evidence they need to prove their "objective"
>> theories, they will simply manufacture them. Putting your faith in scientists is thus <snip>
.
> And one or two rotten apples spoil the whole barrel - how?
.
 Science, like any other human enterprise, is subject to corruption and abuse by those who place zeal before truth. Of course this does not mean that science as a whole is worthless. It is only when it comes to true believers that pagans and atheists feel eminently justified in rejecting the Faith outright because of a few "bad apples". Talk about hypocrisy!
.
>> <snip> Today, however, Zeus has no such influence over people, and hence is
>> become merely another curious cultural artifact from the ancient world.
.
> LB: How do you know?
.
 Well, I just sortta open my eyes, and look around the world to see what's what.
.
> Have you asked the entire world population what they worship, if anything?
.
 More or less. I've studied various studies and charts of religious affiliation world-wide. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and various minor religions, have the world pretty much covered these days.
.
] e: But you pagan atheist unbelievers are supposed to be the rational and sensible ones, right Chuck?
.
>>> Chuck: Right, if such a thing as a "pagan atheist unbeliever" existed.
.
>> tx: Just look into any mirror, Chuck, and you'll see the evidence for my "claims".
.
> LB: Atheists are not pagans are not unbelievers.
.
 But they *can* be ... IF they so desire. That's the beauty of not having the discipline of the Faith; ie. you can define yourself howsoever you may please!
.
> Kindly stop mixing your terms.
.
 Okay, Lorrill. For you ... ANYTHING! :)
.
>>> Chuck: I think the term you're looking for is "heathen."
.
>> e: LOL ... A stinkweed by any other name would smell as sweet ...  :)
.
> LB: Was it your intention to insult people here?
.
 Oh, of course! -> "An insult a day keeps the atheists at bay."
.
>>> Chuck: <snip> LOL  I'll stop when you get around to explaining the
>>> difference between your god and Zeus!
.
>> e: The difference is that "my God" revealed himself within the concrete world of
>> time&space through our Lord Jesus Christ.
.
> LB: But only if you believe.
.
 No, Lorrill. Jesus of Nazareth was as real as you or anyone you know. Indeed he IS far more real and alive than you or anyone you know. Just take the blinders off your eyes, and you also will see this.
.
> What's being asked for here is *objective* evidence.
.
 Well, Ms Buyens, the best *objective* evidence I have on hand is the music of Wolfgang Amadaeus Mozart. But I don't really expect you to recognize the validity of this evidence, for the simple reason that carnal minds are obviously incapable of grasping spiritual realities.
.
>> Do you see the difference between fiction and fact?
.
> LB: Quite plainly, thankyouverymuch. Do you see the difference between tolerance and condescension?
.
 Only if I have to; and then only on Wednesday's ...  :)
.
>> e: Jesus of Nazareth was a real actual historical person, and not merely a narrative character. <snip>
.
> LB: So was George Washington, yet he never chopped down any cherry trees.
> Baseless myth gets attached to historical figures all the time.
.
 Oh, I know this very well. That's why I constantly stress the importance of reading the scriptures with a determined critical and historical sensibility; so that we are better able to recognize later legendary materials, and to cleave all the more strongly to the earliest (apostolic) witnesses (ie. the Gospel of Mark & Peter, and the authentic epistles of Paulos of Damascus, have more authority and historical value than the later NT documents). Needless to say, most Christians today reject the cyber-prophet for this very reason!
.
>>> Chuck: And even worse, he created the whole damn thing in the first place!  LOL
>>> What a worthless, lazy-assed shmuck.
.
>> e: Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
.
> LB: Even if he existed, how would that count as "feeding" us?
.
 Let me put it this way, Lorrill: God causes the life-giving rain to fall upon the just and unjust alike.
.
] e: Well Chuck, I don't see that the Father of Lights has to explain anything to me,
] or you, or anyone else. <snip>
.
>>> Good thing. Because he's remained silent since he farted out the universe.
>>> Maybe he's embarrassed. -- Chuck
.
>> e: With guys like you constantly attacking him, it's little wonder that he's embarrassed.
>> He's probably thinking that maybe he should have made woman first!
.
> LB: 1. *I'm* a woman, and I don't believe in your deity's existence either.
.
 I'm not asking you to believe in the existence of "my deity". I'm just asking you (to paraphrase the Beatles) to 'give the Prince of Peace a chance'. The Kabbala says that women are more spiritually sensitive than men. Are you perhaps the exception to that rule?
.
> 2. (Seen in an old computer game) Number 9 on the Top Ten List of Deities' Practical
> Jokes: Telling man he was to be the ruler of the earth - and then creating woman.
.
 Life is full of practical jokes alright. I figure it's meant to keep things interesting for us; lest we succumb to boredom and ennui.
.
> |               Doctor Fraud                                           |Always believe six|
> | Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology    |impossible things |
> |       Weird Science at Bargain Rates                      |before breakfast. |
.
 Seems to me that you're not doing a very good job of believing six impossible things before breakfast. Perhaps you're falling behind on your quota?

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / Date > 18 May 1999 /
.
  "To all readers and listeners, I say with Christ (John 7): Whoever desires to do the will of God, those who are dead to sin, will know clearly those teachings which come from God. For it is impossible for such a person to be deceived by a false spirit (John 7; Matthew 7; Mark 3; Ephesians 6; 1 Peter 2 and 4; 1 John 2 and 5; Hebrews 10; Romans 2 and 5)." -- From "Divine Order and the Work of His Creatures: To Destroy the Artificial and Hypocritical Excuses of Those Falsely and Corruptly Chosen, Giving Room for Truth to Fulfill the Eternal and Unchanging Will of God. Colossians 1; Ephesians 1" by Hans Denck, 1527