Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2006 > Re: Making money from Java
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Making money from Java
|
|
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| On 15 Dec 2005 05:40:17 -0800, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Unfortunately for them, YES.
Because their all-loving all-powerful Father gave them the gift of
free will, they will be tortured forever and ever.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:26:52 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>Sometimes the answer to a prayer is "Yes". Sometimes the answer is "No".
>Sometimes what we perceive as no response is merely the answer "Wait".
People who worship other gods appear to get the same three answers.
They also sometimes get "answer yourself", as well.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:P34of.8513$kP5.6831@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Where do you get these obsurdities, Richard? I never said that "all true
> Christians" believe as I do. I have never had such a thought. There are
> certain things which are very commonly held among Christians, but there
> are also wide diversities of opinion on other issues. I have never said or
> thought anything else.
I seem to recall a message in which you wrote that Roman Catholics agree
with you on the issues of "faith alone" and "grace alone", which are
prerequisite premises to being correctly called Christian.
All the evidence at hand leads me to believe "sola fide" and "sola gratia"
are specifically Reformation positions, and stem directly from Luther, and
are rejected by the Roman Catholic church.
Thus, as I read your premise: (1) All Christians must believe in salvation
by faith alone through grace alone. (2) Roman Catholicism teaches that
salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. Therefore (3) Roman
Catholic doctrine is a Christian doctrine.
Whether (1) is true or not, (2) is definitely false.
And if (1) is factually true then no Roman Catholic (or for that matter
Eastern Orthodox) group has the right to call itself Christian, by your
rules. Is that sort of arrogance appropriate behavior for a Christian?
Does God really play "Simon says ..."?
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Alistair 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Jesus had bigger fish to fry, as the saying goes. :-)
> --
That is too glib an answer. Perhaps he was gay?
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:Af2of.8486$kP5.3740@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> Begging the Question is tantamount to making what you want prove a
> postulate. But as implied in your (very good) post about falsafiability,
> the idea is to so structure one's proposition as to provide a way to
> permit falsifiability. In order to do this, it is often expedient or
> necessary to assume the proposition to be true (or false), then follow the
> logic to see if there is a contradiction. This is how you falsify a
> proposition, by showing logical contradiction.
Based on this definition, "making what you want prove a postulate", what
you did was Begging the Question. That doesn't mean that God didn't create
the universe; it just means that most logicians would not be convinced by
your proof, since it used a logical fallacy as part of the proof.
I think what you are referring to about looking for a logical
contradiction is the proof technique called "Proof by contradiction." In
this technique, you assume something, then show you show how that assumption
leads to a contradiction. This then shows that one of your assumptions was
false. If you only made one assumption, then you've proven the assumption to
be false, and so you know its negation is true.
There is no such thing as "Proof by lack of contradiction" or anything
like that. That is, you are not supposed to assume something, and then, upon
failing to find a contradiction, conclude that your assumption was true.
Else you wind up with proofs that are "obviously" incorrect:
(1) Assume that everything I have said, everything that I am saying now, and
everything I will ever say is logically true.
(2) Since everything I say is true, there cannot exist any contradiction to
anything I say.
(3) Since there does not exist a contradiction, then my initial assumption
musth ave been true.
>
> In my post at the top, it is very clear that if you start with the
> assumption that God created everything, then you have a non falsifiable
> proposition. But if you start with the assumption that God did not create
> everything, then you have a falsifiable proposition. I believe this is
> what spooked DD and others into claiming I was using a 'trick'. But there
> is no trick, if Genesis is correct, then you cannot prove it incorrect.
> Not because you assumed it to be correct, but because you cannot show it
> false from physical evidence, since any physical evidence that exists was
> created that way by God. This does not make the proposition any less true,
> or likely. It only means you cannot test it's falsity through logic or
> scientific proof. In other words, if God did create everything, then
> scientific efforts to show it didn't happen that way, or to show it
> happened another way, are bound to fail. In fact, they are meaningless.
I'm going to number the statements to show you where the "trick" lies.
(1) Assume God created everything.
(2) Then any evidence that God might not have created everything was created
by God himself.
(3) Yes, this proof is unfalsifiable, but that doesn't nescessarily mean
it's wrong!
(4) This proves that God created everything.
(1), (2) and (3) are logically correct. It's (4) which is logically
incorrect, but you never explicitly say (4). You only imply it, which is why
it was difficult for someone to quote something you actually said and show
you were the logical inconsistency lies.
What you have proved is that your claim is unfalsibiable. What you did
NOT prove is that your claim is true. In other words, you proved that no one
could show your claim to be false. But this is not sufficient to prove that
the claim is true.
> Most scientists don't like this, so they simply beg the question by making
> it a postulate that Divine Creation did not occur. They just don't admit
> that they do that, because they know it is intellectually dishonest.
I disagree here. I believe most scientists do NOT BtQ. It is not so that
"scientists assume the inexistence of God"; rather "scientists do not assume
the existence of God". There's a big differnece here. Contrast these two
pseudo proofs:
(1a) Assume God does not exist.
(2a) [Derive the rest of science...]
(1b) We don't know if God exists or not, so let's not make an assumption one
way or the other.
(2b) [Derive the rest of science...]
You seem to think scientists do (a), but I claim that scientists do (b).
Scientists prefer explanations for natural phenomena that do not require
the existence of a God. But that does not nescessarily mean that such a God
does not exist! It's just that *IF* they use an explanation that requires a
God to exist, then they MUST assume the existence of a God, which breaks the
principle of "Don't make an assumption one way or the other".
When scientists come up with a way for life to spontaneously come about
from non-life, this is NOT a proof for the non-existence of God. They are
merely saying "Look, autogenesis is possible. We don't know if that's what
happened, or if rather God created life; all we're saying is autogenesis IS
a possibility." Some people would rather have the scientists say "Sorry,
these experiments are all a sham. Autogenesis is impossible, and the ONLY
explanation is God." If the scientists did that, they would be lying,
because God is NOT the *ONLY* explanation. There are other explanations. You
might find those other explanations highly unprobable or unrealistic, but
they are within the realm of possibility, and so scientists have to keep
them under consideration.
The problem is that there are soooo many possible explanations for the
origin of life, that there is no way for scientists to investigate all of
them. Maybe God created life. Maybe autogenesis occured. Maybe a spaghetti
monster from the future came back in time, lopped off one of its pasta
tentacles, and that piece of pasta was the "seed" of life. That last one is
unlikely, but formally speaking, its probability is non-zero. Scientists
tend to spend the most amount of effort on theories that are the most
promising.
Sometimes what looks like the most promising theory at a given time will
turn up a dead end. At one point, it was widely believed that the Earth was
in the center of the universe, and the Sun would orbit around it. However,
"stars" (actually planets) like Mercury and Venus would seem to sway around
the sky in a zig-zag fashion, which could not elegantly be explained if the
Earth were in the center. They had tried various models of orbit, including
epicycles (like the pictures you get from those spyrograph toys), but as
their measurements became more and more precise via improvements in
telescope technologies, so did they realize that their models had to become
more and more complex to accurately model what was happening in the "real"
world.
A lot of effort was put into these models, and they turned out to be all
wrong. It is now widely believed that the Earth orbits the Sun. We get much
better predictions with this model, though there are still the occasional
errors, again as our measurements improve. Then we find out about relativity
and gravitonic lensing causing the light coming from the sun to bend due to
gravity waves which explain why we see planets in slightly different
positions from where we expect them to be, and again our predictions are
improved. This is a continuous process.
Scientists typically don't even get to choose what they want to
research. Like everyone else, they need to make a living too, so they work
on whatever they are hired to work on. So for example, if you find there is
surprisingly little effort in furthering research for the spaghetti monster
theory, that might be because no one is willing to fund such research.
Note now that if you feel inside of you the urge to automatically
dismiss the spaghetti monster theory as ridiculous, and yet feel the urge to
support the God theory, you are being biased. From a scientific standpoint,
both add a similar degree of complexity to our current theories about the
universe. In both cases, there is some external sentient (potentially
emotional) agent that adds arbitrariness. "If things are the way they are
because he wants them that way, how do we know he won't change his mind
tomorrow and things will change then?" That's not to say scientists are
thinking "Obviously the spaghetti monster doesn't exist, because I don't
like the idea of the universe changing tomorrow". Rather, they are thinking
"I want the simplest explanation possible for the universe. If I assume that
things are like this because of physical/chemical/whatever laws, then I
won't have to worry about them changing arbitrarily from one moment to the
next." If the laws DO start changing arbitrarily from one moment to the
next, then the scientist will re-evaluate the existence of God, the
spaghetti monster, and other theories which predict arbitrary variances.
So again, having a theory which "does not require supernatural
interference" does NOT mean we've proved that God does not exist. All it
does is shows that we don't have to assume, one way or another, whether or
not God exists, in order to make useful decisions and predictions regarding
this phenomena.
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:30:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
> They had tried various models of orbit, including
>epicycles (like the pictures you get from those spyrograph toys), but as
>their measurements became more and more precise via improvements in
>telescope technologies, so did they realize that their models had to become
>more and more complex to accurately model what was happening in the "real"
>world.
Epicycles can still be used to describe orbits. In fact they can be
useful - imagine you're an astronaut in orbit around the Earth. You
have a radiation bomb which you push away towards Earth so that you
will be safe. Remembering epicycles, you will expect the bomb to
come back to you - and you will be right!
We found that by changing the orientation, simple ellipses worked well
and the math was easier. It also fit in when the simple Newtonian
laws of gravity were formulated. (Those are "theory" using the
scientific definition of that word). We had simple explanations that
worked well together. So we discarded the complex way of describing
what we see. Scientists like the simple solutions when they work.
We have had to repeat the problem above of getting more and more
complex as we have had better measurements. Relativistic and quantum
effects aren't as simple as what Newton could measure.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| "charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What about the uncounted numbers of people that have lived and died
> without ever hearing of Jesus Christ or of even any idea of a messiah that
> will save them from their sins. For example the Indians living in the
> western hemisphere. Are they condemned to hell by accident of the time
> and place of their birth even though they had a rich spiritual tradition
> of their own?
Good question. The short answer is, they're probably lost. It is one of the
terrible consequences of man's decision to sin against God. Here are some
Scriptures:
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to
the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not
believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15,16)
However, there other Scriptures (I'm tired and won't look up all the
references now, but I will later if you want) that indicate that God judges
people based on what they know of His law, and on their heart. The Bible
also declares that God is good and just and full of mercy. Exactly how all
this will play out remains to be seen.
But this is why Christians want to share the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus, to
save as many as possible.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <31e3q1l9fe64nbsgonj47nniq5bh9cv77l@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:30:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Epicycles can still be used to describe orbits. In fact they can be
>useful - imagine you're an astronaut in orbit around the Earth. You
>have a radiation bomb which you push away towards Earth so that you
>will be safe. Remembering epicycles, you will expect the bomb to
>come back to you - and you will be right!
No need to assume such uncommon circumstances, Mr Brazee. Epicycles
describe what goes on in the universe well enough to allow sailors to
traverse the globe.
When I was in college we studied Ptolemy, whose astronomy assumed a
terrocentric universe and described the orbits of the planets in
epicycles. Students asked, at times, 'Why do we study this... the logical
basis of it is wrong!' and the response was 'We study it *because* it is
wrong... and yet it still works.'
DD
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnqo50$iq3$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <Jk_nf.256568$ir4.37132@edtnps90>,
> Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> With all due respect, Mr Wong, the Euclid I studied (Heath edition) made
> no mention of degrees... it may be that somewhere in the Geometry it is
> concluded that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to the sum of
> two right angles but that is, I believe, a proposition which is
> demonstrated.
Euclid contributed an axiomatic system which we now call "Euclidean
geometry". Not sure if Euclid himself mentions what the angles in a triangle
add up to in his text, but it IS using his system that we have derived the
above fact.
>
>
> Ummmm... the Euclid I studied (Heath edition) began with Definitions,
> Postulates and Common Notions. Definitions were things like 'a point is
> that which has no part' and 'a line is breadthless length'... there were a
> whole bunch of these, more than five.
>
> Five was the number of Postulates, which included things like 'to draw a
> straight point between two lines' and 'to produce (continue) a straight
> line continuously in a straight line'... and the Fifth Postulate was the
> Parallel Postulate.
Yes, it sounds like what you are calling "Postulates", I would (in a
more rigorous context) called "axioms". I believe axioms can be further
subdivided into "assumptions" and "tautologies". Tautologies are those
statements which are true by their own definition, and I figured none of the
Euclid's five "postulates" falls under that category (though I don't
actually remember all five of them), so I called them assumptions.
> [snip]
>
>
> Hmmmmm... in another posting I referred to Popper's theories from the
> 1930s as 'barely a century old'... Lobachevski put together/plagiarised
> his work in the early-mid 19th century... nice to see that called
> 'recent'.
Recent in the context of geometry and mathematics, anyway. What time
frames may considered recent when dealing with, for example, computer
programming paradigm, versus when dealing with the formation of galaxies,
may differ significantly.
>
> (And... my memory is, admittedly, porous but I recall that if one attempts
> to conctruct a geometry on the surface of a hypersphere then the Parallel
> Postulate holds... but that's for another time, perhaps.)
In Euclidean geometry, the parallel line postulate says (or is
equivalent to):
Given a line L and a point P which is not on L, there exist exactly one
line which crosses P but which does not cross L. This line is said to be
"parallel" to L.
In spherical geometry, there does NOT exist any such line, and in
hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) geometry, there exists infinitely many such
lines.
>
> Not as I recall it... first Definitions, then Postulates, then Common
> Notions, *then* Propositions. But... enough about my memory. Consider
> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/ja...ookI/bookI.html .
Yes, I may have been "skipping a few steps". =)
- Oliver
| |
| charles.stevens@unisys.com 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:MB%nf.256592$ir4.210866@edtnps90...
> I guess I had fallen prey to the Jewish view of Roman Catholicism as
> the face of Christianity. It was not until this post that I had realized
> that Catholicism and Christianity were two seperate concepts.
And to a *great* many self-proclaimed Christians, Catholics are the
very antithesis of Christians. I've known some self-proclaimed
Christians who identify that organization as the "great whore"
discussed in Revelation 19:2-3 and have no shame in saying so in so
many words.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnrgnr$5ue$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <IX_nf.256583$ir4.214345@edtnps90>,
> Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> Actually my question is known to me as the 'Mind-Mind problem'; what you
> wrote is a variant of 'you have to make your mind do (x)' and it is my
> wont to ask where 'you' exists in that statement, as well.
I suppose the question of what is "me" and what isn't is more a matter
of linguistics than philosophy. When you wave your hand in my direction and
say "That, there, is Mr. Wong", you are probably referring to the collection
of matter that makes up my body. So "me" is a convenient pronoun to refer to
this collection of matter.
[snip]
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1134601274.619367.317670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> I'm just not happy with getting something for nothing. I know that
> there is some belief that pure vacuums can spontaneously generate
> particles and given that one should generate near to a black hole then
> , if one part falls in to the hole and the other escapes, then the
> effect is that matter evaporates from the hole. It still smells like
> black magic to me.
Conversation of matter/energy is still conserved: the vacuum energy in
space is converted to matter temporarily (on the order of Planck-time) and
usually these matter/anti-matter pair just immediately recollide back into
each other to turn back into energy again. But sometimes a black hole eats
one of the pair up, and so it looks like matter (or energy) is being
radiated away from the black hole.
As for "there is some belief that pure vacuums can spontaneously
generate particles", I believe there is a "reproduceable" (assuming you have
the proper equipment) experiment that you can perform that provides evidence
for this belief. If you have the budget and the desire to try it yourself, I
believe you can read on how to perform the experiment by googling the
"Casimir effect".
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnrr12$m35$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <en0of.256602$ir4.135657@edtnps90>,
> Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> That's what I said, sorta kinda almost... but it has also been claimed
> that Moses is aware of the falsity of his assumptions.
>
Probably, for nobody's toeses are posies of roses, as Moses (allegedly)
supposes his toses to be.
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:NAjof.9484$kP5.7513@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good question. The short answer is, they're probably lost. It is one of
> the terrible consequences of man's decision to sin against God.
This sounds very unfair (how is it their fault?), and while I don't
expect "real life" to be nescessarily be fair, I do expect a kind and loving
omniscient God to be fair.
[snip]
>
> However, there other Scriptures (I'm tired and won't look up all the
> references now, but I will later if you want) that indicate that God
> judges people based on what they know of His law, and on their heart. The
> Bible also declares that God is good and just and full of mercy. Exactly
> how all this will play out remains to be seen.
>
> But this is why Christians want to share the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus,
> to save as many as possible.
If these latter scriptures are true, then it seems better if Christians
do NOT spread the Gospel. The less people know about God's Law, the more
higher the chance that those people will be judged on the kindness of their
heart, rather than whether they decided to believe one set of religious
advocates over another.
- Oliver
| |
| charles.stevens@unisys.com 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:CU4of.8526$kP5.2446@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Actually, discussion doesn't enter into it. God knows who are the true
> believers, and doesn't ask our opinion on the matter. :-)
So you don't accept the Epistle of James as canonic? Or is it just the
second chapter you don't like? ;-)
Just a reminder: as I read it, the presumption is salvation by faith
(alone) through grace (alone).
I asked:
[color=darkred]
You replied:
[color=darkred]
> I have a very good friend who is a devout Christian. In 1975 when he was
> saved, and for a short time after, he was doing drugs and cursing and such
> because he didn't know any better. It wasn't his conduct that made him a
> Christian, but his faith in Jesus. We might look at someone and decide he
> is or isn't a Christian because of his actions, but we really can't be
> sure. Every Christian sins from time to time, and occasionally someone
> gets into a Big Sin. But it is still their faith in Jesus, not their
> actions, that make them a Christian. That's what it means to be saved "by
> grace". We don't deserve it.
Entirely irrelevant to my question.
> You certainly know more about Catholic doctrine than I do, I've never been
> a Catholic. But I have seen written declarations from the Catholic Church
> expressing precisely the definition I give above (in almost the exact same
> words), or I wouldn't have said so.
Look up "sola fide" in Wikipedia. It says "Sola fide (by faith alone),
also
historically known as the justification of faith, is a doctrine that
distinguishes Protestant denominations from Catholicism and Eastern
Christianity in Christianity." Martin Luther invented the slogan.
Martin
Luther is also reported in the Wikipedia article as having referred to
the
Epistle of James as the "epistle of straw". Martin Luther also
inserted the
word "allein" (alone) in his translation into German of Romans 3:28, "
....
is justified by faith *alone* ...", an insertion for which there seems
to be
no justification based on any early text for this passage in any
language.
> Anyway, it doesn't matter what I say, those principles are clearly and
> repeatedly defined in the Bible and beyond dispute.
"Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up!"? It may be
possible
to defend these principles from the Bible, but that does not prohibit
someone else from coming to a different, and equally defensible,
conclusion
from the same text. The Roman Catholic Church seems to have done so.
> I would be very shocked and disappointed to learn that the Catholic Church
> deviated so far from God's Word as to make themselves a cult.
No, Jordan. They deviated that far from *your interpreatation* of
God's
word. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodoxy) has, whether
you
like it or not, a direct and unbroken link in its hierarchy going all
the
way back to Peter and the bishops he ordained. Only bishops can ordain
bishops and priests. Whether you accept a "mystical" component to the
Apostolic Succession, it has a practical component in that what the
Early
Church Fathers *said*, and what they *understood*, beyond what they
*wrote*,
stands more of a chance of being preserved there than in an
organization
whose traditions began on October 31, 1517.
> Do Catholics believe that we are saved by the grace of God and not by
> works?
According to Wikipedia, "[sola fide] is rejected by Catholics, who say
faith
and works acting through God's Grace are necessary parts of salvation."
> Do Catholics believe that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ?
In part ...
> Do Catholics believe that Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God?
Yes, I would say that's true; however, I suspect I understand "nobody
comes
to the Father save through me" differently from you.
> Do Catholics believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Yes, and is also one substance with the Father, the second person of
the
Holy Trinity (the third being the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the
Father and the Son).
> Do Catholics believe that Jesus died for our sins?
Yes.
> These are what I said all Christians believe.
You said all Christians believe in salvation by faith, and in that is
the
implicit premise that works don't matter. The Roman Catholic church
does
not agree.
> Surely you are not telling me that the answer to any of those is 'no'?
Sure am, Judson, from material that's as readily available to you as to
me.
There are *long* discussions on this subject in the online Catholic
encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ under the subjects
"justification" and "grace".
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to digest not only Roman Catholic
doctrine, but also the reasons for each part of that doctrine, before
expounding on what that doctrine is and why it's right (or wrong) in
detail?
And that brings up the subject: Which uncontrivertable and
universally-accepted authority gave *you* the right to decide and
decree
*for others* who is, and who is not, a real Christian? It is one
thing to
*opine*, based on your understanding of Scripture and your
understanding of
a particular point; it is quite another to presume that your personal
understanding (and what you have been taught) is the Only Possible Way
to
read Scripture.
Can you not understand that others might perceive such a decree as
evidence
of both pride and arrogance on your part, neither of which is likely to
be
regarded as consistent with Christian behavior?
Can you not also understand that there is no difference between
accepting
the teachings of your *denomination* about what is and is not a real
Christian and the very attitudes in the Roman Catholic Church that
Luther
railed against in 1517?
If you're spouting your denomination's line, then your denomination's
taken
over Sole Ownership of The Only Correct Understanding of Scripture.
That's
arrogant *of them*, just as arrogant as the Reformation-era Western
Church.
If you've come to these conclusions *yourself*, and concluded that they
represent The Only Correct Understanding of Scripture, and it's your
job to
convince everyone how lousy *their* understanding is and how great
*yours*
is, well ...
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| Judson,
As you took the trouble to respond, I have commented on your response below.
I would've done so sooner, but simply haven't had the time.
Thanks for the response.
Comments below...
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:76Amf.3687$MA2.1527@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I do have a questioning nature, and I do wonder about those things. Even
> though I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word, the Bible doesn't give
> us all the answers.
You got that right. In my opinion, it raises more questions than it answers.
But that is probably to be expected when you consider all the various
authors and the time periods it was written across. If all the authors were
inspired by the same God, He appears to have changed his mind a lot.
There are lots of things I don't understand about God. But
> it would have to be a pretty small and insignificant god that a human
> could completely understand, would it not? :-)
>
Why? I have known women who I couldn't understand, but they were neither
small nor insignificant... :-)
> You pose a couple of interesting questions there, and I wonder if you have
> considered those questions from God's viewpoint, assuming God as the Bible
> describes Him? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is
> true, and that God is as the Bible describes Him, and take a look at those
> two questions of yours in that contaxt, to see if the Biblical scenario
> makes sense. Please bear with me, I can't say this in two or three
> sentences. :-)
>
OK.
> Okay, why does God seem to hide Himself? Well, what has happened in the
> past when He did not? Remember, we're assuming the Biblical account is
> correct here. Initially God created Adam and Eve, and the Bible says God
> walked and talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, apparently every
> afternoon. Because Adam and Eve were completely without sin originally,
> they could be in God's presence without being destroyed.
This is where I have my first problem. I don't believe in "sin". (I believe
there are outcomes that are undesirable, because they make life harder for
us all, but the universe has no knowledge of "good" or "evil" and doesn't
care. (Neither should it...). There are simply events that occur at all
levels. Randomly sometimes, and consequentially other times. In every case,
the considerations about these events are imposed by humans, not by nature.)
If God was so Holy that He couldn't even be in the presence of sin, and
given that, as the world He created unfolded, there was going to be a fair
bit of it about, it would seem a flaw in His capability if He wasn't able to
be near it.
> So how did our original parents respond to God's clear and regular
> presence? They waited until (from Adam and Eve's perspective) God was not
> immediately present, then they both disobeyed God's one and only rule, and
> ate the forbidden fruit.
It was a stupid rule that was made up entirely to tempt them anyway. God
could easily grow another apple; why was He so concerned about Adam
acquiring "knowledge"? Could He have felt threatened by Man? Unlikely. So
why the rule about the tree? It had to be to see if His created people were
obedient. And they weren't. They were curious. The same curiosity that to
this day drives people to probe and investigate and find out more about the
nature of things. God's behaviour over this says more about God than it does
about Adam and Eve. Why would an all powerful supreme being want to be
worshipped by people who were totally obedient, subservient, unimaginative,
and unquesioning? He could have populated the world with IBM salesmen if
that was what he liked. :-)
>Okay, so God ran them out of Eden. Adam and Eve, now being sinners, would
>perish in God's immediate presence, so out of mercy God backed off from
>immediate contact with them.
Oh, like He was unable to contain their sin or be unaffected by it Himself?
> And how did that work? Cain, the first human being ever born became a
> murderer and killed his brother Able. (That would be "Abel"... his
> capability is not under discussion :-)) So, why did Cain kill Abel?
> Because God favoured his brother more than him. If God had not required
> sacrifice form either of them but had instead had afternoon chats like he
> did in the old days with their Dad, the murder would probably not have
> happened. The whole  outcome could probably have been avoided if God
> had simply dealt with the tree incident as a learning experience for
> mankind and not been spiteful and vengeful over it. Sacrifices were not
> required while Adam and Eve were in the garden; it was only after being
> evicted that they were so terrified they devised a way to propitiate God.
> A loving God would not require propitiation.
>This trend continued until, in apparent disgust at the rampant evil of
>mankind, God destroyed the entire human race with a flood, except for the
>righteous man Noah, and seven other people.
And He didn't foresee this outcome when He took the dust and created Adam?
If He did, then what was the point?
>Even after that dramatic judgment, people continued to be evil.
That is not proven. SOME people behaved badly. God's definition of "bad" was
that they didn't live in fear and trembling of Him. (Personally, I don't
believe people are now, or have ever been, evil. We are certainly flawed and
imperfect, but a new born baby is not evil and bad behaviour is acquired,
not inherent.)
>So God selected a man of great faith, Abraham, and through him God started
>a people whom God intended to deal with in a more direct manner.
Or so they tell us...
I've never understood why God would have a chosen race and if He did, why
don't they rule the Earth? Instead, for thousands of years they have had
nothing but trouble and strife, persecution, and suffering. Even today, they
are still havng trouble just trying to hang on to the land they claim God
gave them. Small wonder that some of them are becoming disillusioned with
the official religion.
>After 400 years, Abraham's descendents the Jews were slaves and many were
>worshiping the gods of their captors, so God sent Moses to deliver them
>from slavery and take them to the land He had promised to Abraham. God
>proceeded to practically demolish the Egyptian economy through a series of
>ten spectacular 'plagues', then saved the Jews by literally holding back
>the Egyptian army with a wall of fire, and opening up a dry valley through
>the Red Sea, with the water heaped up on each side. Then every day for
>*forth years* God's presence was visible as a cloud that covered them by
>day, and fire by night. Six days a w they woke up with the ground
>covered with food (manna), which would spoil if you kept it overnight,
>except for the Sabbath.
I can't imagine living on the same food for forty years, even if it was
magic mushrooms dropped by a space pixie. Wouldn't you think that a God who
could do all those outrageous things to the Egyptians could have varied the
diet a bit?
>There were no atheists among the Jews in those days, because God's presence
>was astoundingly obvious.
And you know this.... how? Who's to say that one or two didn't buy into the
mass hallucination?
>What was the result? Only a few months after the parting of the Red Sea,
>God spoke to the whole nation from Mt. Sinai. This scared the Jews so much,
>they asked Moses to deal with God for them. So when Moses went up Mt. Sinai
>to hear what God had to say, by the time Moses returned in 40 days, the
>Jews had already made a golden calf and were worshiping it!
When the Cat's away... they probably elected Moses to go up the mountain
because he was the least fun and most likely to spoil the party. Once he was
gone they let the good times roll...
>These people had just witnessed the most fantastic series of supernatural
>events since the Creation, they had seen God's undeniable presence every
>single day, and they were worshiping a gold calf!
They had spent forty years wandering around in a very inhospitable place
(I've been there) waiting for their leader to get the word from God and
never knowing when that word would come, living on food that was tedious in
the extreme, keeping all the rules required by their faith, and having very
little fun. I don't blame them one bit for wanting to kick their heels up.
> This cannot be overstated: GOD'S OBVIOUS DAILY PRESENCE DID NOT PRODUCE
> FAITH IN MEN!
Probably because familiarity breeds contempt. He could have looked in
occasionally... Besides, he never communicated with them on a regular basis
so it was hardly surprising they were all terrified when He finally did.
Why? The only answer I can think of is Jeremiah 17:9: "The
> heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know
> it?"
Jeremiah was a miserable old fart. Only his mother could love him and the
bible does not record whether she did or not. He was EXACTLY the sort fo
person who would delight in the austere worship of a tyrannical God as this
would be his only chance of having any effect on the people in his
community. He couldn't make friends so he decided to instill fear instead.
> Men simply have evil hearts, and they do not believe or disbelieve in God
> because of proof or lack of proof, but because of what men want in their
> hearts.
No they don't. If you look around you can see heroism and kindness every day
in people from all faiths, cultures, and walks of life. People are NOT
basically evil. They just get screwed up by having to cope with a complex
world and learning the wrong lessons sometimes. Furthermore, these wrong
lessons are often passed on to children, not born in them.
I don't disbelieve in God because my heart is wicked. I disbelieve in God
because my reason and intuition tell me so, and because I have no necessity
for God in my life. (I can also explain how the universe works to a
satisfactory level without needing a supreme being to make it so...) I have
coped with adversity and danger, even been in peril of my life, and never
asked God for help. I'm still here, and I live a pleasant (though somewhat
quieter now) life which gives me great enjoyment. I do the best I can to
help my fellow man, not because I wish to accrue Brownie points in heaven,
or because I fear burning in eternal torment (I notice God's pretty big on
this blood and torture stuff; I'm not...), but because it simply makes sense
to do so. It is just as easy to be "good" as it is to be "bad" and doing so
makes life a bit easier all round.
>I believe this clearly illustrates why simply dazzling us with miracles
>*does not* accomplish what God apparently wants, and that is for us to have
>faith in Him.
I think the God you are describing is insecure and needs help. (These are
axiomatically NOT Godlike qualities, so it throws the whole belief system
into question.)
>One other illustration while I'm on this point.When thinking about the
>story Jesus told of Lazarus and the rich man (Like 16:19-31), I used to
>have trouble accepting that people would not believe, even if someone whom
>they knew was dead, came back and told them about God. But over the years,
>I have seen with my own eyes that people are just that obstinate. I know
>people who have been miraculously healed, medical evidence and all. One of
>my very oldest and dearest friends had stomach cancer. They did multiple
>CAT scans and x-rays, including the day before surgery, and the cancer was
>there. My friend was a minister (now retired), and his whole church was
>praying for him. The surgeon said after surgery that when he went in, he
>saw lesions on the stomach wall where the cancer had been, but the cancer
>was completely gone. Now, if my friend came and showed you those medical
>records, would it make you a believer? :-)
Yes, certainly. It would make me a believer in the power of the mind and the
human defence systems that evolved over three million years to ensure we
stay healthy. If the mind is clear and untroubled, there is no reason why
these systems won't do their job. I can't also rule out the efficacy of
prayer, inasmuch as a group of people focussing on a commn goal and
intensely wishing it so, MAY have some effect. Modern science teaches us
that everything is connected at some level, so I certainly wouldn't dismiss
the power of prayer. (I would argue that a group of people all simply
focussing on healing the sick person might attain the same goal; and this,
in and of itself, probably won't effect a cure. It certainly does no harm.)
The reason we get sick is because the protective systems that took millions
of years to evolve have been overtaken in the last geological blink of an
eye by technology and intensive farming that these systems haven't yet had a
chance to adjust to. We eat food that is full of chemicals, drink water that
is not pure, and are bombarded 24/7 by electromagnetic waves that we really
don't know the full effects of, because they haven't been around long enough
for us to really do definitive studies on them. The "miracle" is not that
people get better unexpectedly sometimes, but that any of us survive more
than a few decades.
>
> So, why do so many people suffer, if there is a God, and He is good?
I believe Buddhism addresses this exact question, but removes the reference
to God.
>You're not the only one to pose this question, many Christians have asked
>the same thing, particularly when enduring great suffering. If you were a
>believer, I would recommend C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain" but this
>book might not be satisfying to a non-believer.
No, it isn't for this non-believer. Likewise Bertrand Russell and Malcolm
Muggeridge. (I did enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid and saw the newly
released movie (made in New Zealand) last w. His allegory is a bit too
heavy handed for me now, as an adult, but the special effects alone made the
film worth a visit. I have a feeling Disney may struggle to get their $200
million back, but I hope not...)
> I will take a stab at it, but this is a very difficult subject, and I'm no
> expert. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume the God of the
> Bible.
I've stayed with you so far... :-)
> I believe the answer lies in understanding three things, one that God
> decided to give man free will, two that our time in this world is short,
> particularly when compared to the eternity that follows, and three that
> there really is a Satan out there and his purpose is "to kill, steal and
> destroy" (John 10:10).
Fortunately, as an atheist, I don't have to believe in Satan any more than I
do in God. I find the whole concept of absolute good and absolute evil just
laughable. I have to say, though, that simply as a character, Satan is a lot
more interesting than God.
>When God created man, He gave man dominion over the earth. But when man
>(Adam and Eve) listened to Satan and sinned, man, through Adam, abdicated
>his dominion to Satan. Since that time, Satan has been "the ruler of this
>world" whom Jesus has defeated (John 12:31), and who will be eventually
>thrown into the Lake of Fire for eternity.
Well, my information is that he is not averse to fire, so that should be
fine... :-)
>The Bible doesn't spell out precisely what powers Satan has to work
>mischief here, but it is apparently significant.
I'm sure you believe my posts here are inspired by him... Who knows? If you
believe something, it may become real for you.
If it helps... I hereby publicly renounce Satan and all his minions, and
refuse him dominion over me. (The mischief I indulge in here sometimes, is
not Satanic, it simply comes from being afflicted by a sense of humour...)
>Were diseases created by Satan (e.g. by mutating harmless bacteria &
>virus), for example? We can only speculate. But because of man's fall, God
>cursed the earth (Genesis 3:17-19). I have often wondered if what we
>perceive and express as "Murphy's Law" (Anything that can go wrong, will go
>wrong) is actually God's curse at work? :-)
Once you create a "whipping boy" it is pretty easy to ascribe all bad things
to him. I still believe in randomity.
> Anyway, man has sinned against God, and there are direct and indirect
> consequences of that.
How? I personally don't bear the Old Boy any grudge. Just exactly how did I
"sin" against Him?
>There are also the specific consequences of the sins themselves (e.g.
>adultery leads to divorce).
Really? And I thought it was incompatibility... (I have been married twice;
neither marriage ended because of adultery on either side.)
>And all the while, Satan causes all the mischief he can, helped by hosts of
>fallen angels whom the Bible calls demons. At the very least, Satan tempts
>and encourages men to evil acts.
I think the problem I have here is the same one I have with Christianity in
general.
There is no RESPONSIBILITY.
The Devil made me wicked, but it's OK because Jesus died for me...
Soory, no disrespect to those who follow this faith, but it simply doesn't
work for me. I take responsibility for the things I do; the good, the bad,
and the ugly. When I screw up I try to make it right, and whatever I do, I
certainly learn by it.
>Now, against this background, God has limited Himself by the decisions He
>has made, such as to give man free will, and dominion over the earth, which
>man abdicated to Satan. We can only speculate about the principles on which
>this abdication took place; how Satan obtained and currently has dominion.
>But if the Bible is correct about these things, it makes sense, at least to
>me, from that standpoint. God is more interested in our condition at the
>time we meet Him, than He is about what we experience here, and He will
>willingly see His people suffer here, if that helps to perfect them. If God
>were to simply remove all suffering, that means all the direct and indirect
>consequence of sin, would He not by that very act, undermine what He has
>said about sin, that the consequences of sin are death? I realize this is
>only a partial answer, but I hope it gives some insight into why the God of
>the Bible might not do more to alleviate suffering.
> --
It is a valiant attempt, Judson, and I respect your sincerity.
Unfortunately, I am not persuaded. The reasons for this are not obstinacy or
the Devil hardening my heart, it is just that the case is predicated on the
Bible being true and authoritative. I don't accept that.
In the end, it comes down to faith. While I respect yours (and everybody
else's) I smply don't share it.
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| A couple of random comments:
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:40ebioF1aa2vkU1@individual.net...
> If it helps... I hereby publicly renounce Satan and all his minions, and
> refuse him dominion over me. (The mischief I indulge in here sometimes, is
> not Satanic, it simply comes from being afflicted by a sense of humour...)
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. *Renouncing* doesn't hack it. You
have to *rebuke* Satan, and you have to use a specific formula to do it ...
;-)
> The Devil made me wicked, but it's OK because Jesus died for me...
.... as in the bumper sticker "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"?
;-)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1134486068.698729.128150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>>
> In my case, after moving away from religion, I did not become the rabid
> non-believer that I am now. I spent many years hedging my bets,
> considering other religions, before coming to be an avowed atheist
> (last couple of years). I am aware of the ease with which humans can
> delude themselves and, therefore, allow for the possibility that I have
> erred by turning away from religion and, therefore, I do not force my
> atheism down the throats of others, do not condemn them for their
> beliefs nor would I wish for the state to forcibly abolish religion. I
> do however, enjoy debating religion, hence my participation in this
> thread, and I would enjoy most opening your eyes to the truth as I see
> it. However, you've already been there and closed your mind.
>
I didn't realise you were of this opinion, Alastair. It's nice to know I'm
not the only one :-) (although it would make no difference whatsoever to
what I believe, if I WERE the only one...)
I endorse your approach above and do not try and force my belief on others
either. However, it IS my belief, so I defend it stoutly in cases where the
subject is under discussion.
I used to (when I was in my twenties) enjoy debating religion, but as I have
grown older, I find it is simply pointless. If you win the argument and
dissuade someone from their faith you really haven't done them any favour,
if you simply argue against religion and have nothing else to suggest, it
doesn't achieve much, and if you are talking to people who are incapable of
independent thought, it is really a waste of time. It is only of
entertainment value in a forum like this, where intelligent minds s
diversion, but are unlikely to be changed...:-)
>
"Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of
Heaven."
Perhaps the child was right. Maybe Satan corrupted the child ...:-)
It isn't gullible to accept evidence. It is gullible to accept it without
question.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-12-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:1HInf.5023$w7.3699@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
So could I.
> Then you will certainly win the Nobel Prize for biochemistry, probably for
> several years running.
Nope. It isn't about bio-chemistry in the fundamental form, although that's
what it became. Amino acids have already been synthesized in the laboratory
using the same conditions as would have been around at the time they first
appeared on Earth. Certainly, life (even a unicellular organism) has not
(yet) been synthesized, but that doesn't mean it won't be. "life" (or even
DNA molecules, if you prefer) are becoming increasingly well understood and
it is moral and religious objections that are preventing their synthesis,
rather than any lack of technical capability.
> Athiests the world around will chant your name.
I'm disappointed here, Judson. This belief is as important to me as your
Christian belief is to you. By all means disagree, but let's not be
ridiculous. You obviously know very little about atheism (can't even spell
it right... ;-)); it is a personal position, we are not organised, we don't
chant, and the other atheists I know couldn't give a rodent's anus whether
life gets created artificially or not.
People who don't believe in God do not require reinforcement of that belief;
they arrived at it by independent thought and know why they hold it. One day
they may change their minds (that is the difference between independent
thought and acceptance of dogma), but in the meantime, laboratory
experiments are unlikely to make any difference. (I stress that I cannot
speak for other atheists (there is no 'creed' or 'bible' you must adhere to
in order to be an atheist, other than the belief that there is no God, so I
can't know what other atheists believe beyond that...), but that's how it is
for me.)
>I've read most of the theories out there, if not all of them. I await your
>explanation with eagerness. :-)
>
>
> That's good, because it is no answer, it just pushes the problem farther
> back in time, in the vain hope it will somehow go away. :-)
It is not a problem, so there is no 'vain hope'.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-12-15, 9:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:_dUnf.7667$kP5.1316@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
Why? There is nothing to be gained in turning this discussion into a COBOL
vs Java debate (it most certainly isn't...) and there is no problem with
Judson quoting source to support his argument.
It would be just as (in)appropriate to decide it is a Canadian vs USA
debate. Attributes of the debaters that have nothing to do with the subject
under discussion are simply irrelevant.
>
> Jimmy, just remember that I have to quote the Bible sometimes, simply for
> reference to what the Biblical position is. Consider that many (not all,
> of course) non-believers don't have a clue what the Bible actually says. I
> realize they don't consider what the Bible says as proof about God, but
> quoting what the Bible says sure is proof (or explanation) of what the
> Bible does say. :-)
And those of us who dispute your claims may also quote references that
support our claims. I see no problem with Biblical reference being used any
more than Wikipedia reference being used.
I'll quote it myself (and apparently, so will Satan) if it suits my purpose
:-)
Pete.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 7:55 am |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Don't forget that the Christmas tree is also a pagan symbol.
As well as the Easter Bunny, and the eggs. Some Christians object to these
symbols on that basis.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 7:55 am |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which is useful to remember when you think about whether self defined
> Christians might be given authority to run prayer in schools.
I agree.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 7:55 am |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> If we had such torture here on earth, would anything else be as
> important as stopping it?
>
> Of course, that is a big issue to people who dislike torture.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me that so many people accept it as right and
> proper.
God has given us the evidence of the entire creation.
He has given us the Bible as evidence, in which God clearly warns us about
the coming judgment. For every word of mercy and grace in the Bible, there
are three words describing the judgment. The Bible declares that only a fool
says there is no God.
He has given His only Son to die for our sins, to save us from that terrible
judgment.
He has given us the evidence of the testimony of millions of Christians who
know Him.
We accept or reject these evidences as we choose. A holy and just God who
has done all these things to save a sinful and rebellious people, then sees
those He created, who depend on Him for their every breath, reject His
evidence and His sacrifice, is going to do what? Give those who reject Him a
gentle reprimand? Listen to those who reject Him for advice? He offers us
the choice of following Him or rejecting Him. He clearly spells out the
consequences of each choice in His Word, the Bible. Each of us gets what we
choose. Those who reject a merciful God Who has sacrificed His Son to save
them, get no say in the matter of consequences, nor should they. Do
criminals get to decide the punishment for their crimes? Should they? Do
they typically think the punishment is fair, or even admit their guilt? Such
is the human heart.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 7:55 am |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Hmmmmmm... outside of the word of a single individual - 'So-and-so says
> they have faith in Jesus' - how is the state of 'being saved' to be
> determined?
By God, of course. Only God and the individual can know with absolute
certainty if that individual believes in Jesus for their salvation. But
humans deal with issues all the time that have not been (perhaps cannot be)
absolutely determined. I've never seen Mt. Everest, but I can be reasonably
certain about it being there. Even seeing something may not be *absolute
proof*. Most "knowledge" that we deal with as humans falls into this
category, so why object to the same situation in determining who is a "real
Christian?"
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <b2kof.1248$lv3.1229@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnqo50$iq3$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Euclid contributed an axiomatic system which we now call "Euclidean
>geometry". Not sure if Euclid himself mentions what the angles in a triangle
>add up to in his text, but it IS using his system that we have derived the
>above fact.
Once again, Mr Wong... as I was taught it Euclid gave (in the sense that
'Homer' gave the Illiad and the Odyssey) a set of works beginning with
Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions; using these he generated
Propositions and the whole of these constitute the Geometry. I am not
sure how this is to be reconciled to what you are calling 'an axiomatic
system' but to state 'since Euclid's system is used to derive facts about
sums of angles in a triangle the source of these facts is Euclidean
geometry'; this appears similar to a logical extension along the lines of
'Joe builds walls; since within these walls a plumbing system is
constructed the source of the plumbing system is Joe's walls'.
>
>
> Yes, it sounds like what you are calling "Postulates", I would (in a
>more rigorous context) called "axioms". I believe axioms can be further
>subdivided into "assumptions" and "tautologies". Tautologies are those
>statements which are true by their own definition, and I figured none of the
>Euclid's five "postulates" falls under that category (though I don't
>actually remember all five of them), so I called them assumptions.
Mr Wong, what I am calling Postulates are also called Postulates in
various translations of The Elements; the Heath edition begins this
section with 'Let the following be postulated'. The Definitions, in
general, concern themselves with nouns ('a point', 'a line', 'an angle',
'trilateral figures', etc.) while the Postulates concern themselves with
actions ('to draw', 'to describe') and conditions (4. 'That all right
angles are equal one another', 5. 'That, if a straight line falling on two
straight lines makes... the two straight lines, if produced
indefinitely...') It is a habit of my training to try and make use of as
much original material as possible, including the terms used... perhaps I
should find a laundromat for nuns and try to deal with this unclean habit.
[snip]
>
> In Euclidean geometry, the parallel line postulate says (or is
>equivalent to):
>
> Given a line L and a point P which is not on L, there exist exactly one
>line which crosses P but which does not cross L. This line is said to be
>"parallel" to L.
Equivalences are one thing, Mr Wong, texts are another. The Heath
translation renders Postulate 5 as 'That, if a straight line falling on
two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than
two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet
on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.'; it
may be beneficial to view this in light of a preceding Definition (23),
which he translates as 'Parallel straight lines are straight lines which,
being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both
directions, do not meet one another in either direction.'
>
> In spherical geometry, there does NOT exist any such line, and in
>hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) geometry, there exists infinitely many such
>lines.
Euclid's geometry, being constructed first in a plane and later in a
series of intersecting planes, just might, possibly, not be applicable to
what happens on the surface of spheres, no... and Lobachevskian geometry
is another delightful matter, entire.
>
>
> Yes, I may have been "skipping a few steps". =)
Caution has been advised about doing such things, Mr Wong; Aristotle is
reported to have told Alexander that 'there is no royal road to geometry'.
DD
| |
|
| In article <f9kof.1408$lv3.1341@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnrgnr$5ue$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> I suppose the question of what is "me" and what isn't is more a matter
>of linguistics than philosophy.
Some might say sociology/anthropology as well, Mr Wong... how does one
learn to differentiate between that-which-is-called 'self' and
that-which-is-not? Consider the horrors which might be found in the
punishment of banishment when what some folks call 'a group' is necessary
for the survival of what some folks call 'an individual'; when the Human
Beings say 'you are no longer a part of us' then a logical response might
be to go out into the forest, sing a Death Song and be done with it all.
DD
| |
|
| In article <Lnkof.1619$lv3.449@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnrr12$m35$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Probably, for nobody's toeses are posies of roses, as Moses (allegedly)
>supposes his toses to be.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
DD
| |
|
| In article <HRyof.30608$Y72.10019@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>By God, of course. Only God and the individual can know with absolute
>certainty if that individual believes in Jesus for their salvation.
Hmmmmm... a 'God only knows' condition, it seems.
>But
>humans deal with issues all the time that have not been (perhaps cannot be)
>absolutely determined. I've never seen Mt. Everest, but I can be reasonably
>certain about it being there.
.... and you can, given the inclination, go to the place where others have
reported seeing it or being on it, attempt to duplicate their actions and
come back to report on the results.
>Even seeing something may not be *absolute
>proof*. Most "knowledge" that we deal with as humans falls into this
>category, so why object to the same situation in determining who is a "real
>Christian?"
.... because you cannot go to the place where others have reported the
results exist, attempt to duplicate their actions and come back to report
on the results. As I understand it the final determination of 'who is a
"real Christian"' (" original) is made post-mortem; near-death experiences
(some say it is the result of oxygen deprivation) might be as valid a
description of what happens post-mortem as near-New York experiences (in
the words of that Profound Philosopher, Bugs Bunny: 'Hoboken? Ooooooh,
I'm *dyin'*, again!') might be of Times Square.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| On 15 Dec 2005 17:11:47 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I suspect that he also knows very little about theism beyond the 'one
>true way' that he is unwavering from. He probably considers that
>studying anything other than KJV is supping with the devil. His claim
>to be 'questioning' is only what the so called 'creation science
>foundation' tells him to.
There are lots of people who proclaim that it's impossible to not have
faith - therefore atheists are lying when they say they are not True
Believers in no god.
I wish that I could say the same thing about people who say they
believe in hellfire allowed by who they worship. It would be the
charitable thing to do - to assume that they are not nearly as
monstrous as they appear to be.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:33:54 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>People who don't believe in God do not require reinforcement of that belief;
>they arrived at it by independent thought and know why they hold it. One day
>they may change their minds (that is the difference between independent
>thought and acceptance of dogma), but in the meantime, laboratory
>experiments are unlikely to make any difference.
Certainly is atheism is correct, laboratory experiments aren't going
to show anything. But if there are deities, it is quite possible
that they can be detected and analyzed. It was *after* we discovered
that science doesn't show God that theologists proclaimed that this
was right and proper.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> So you don't accept the Epistle of James as canonic? Or is it just the
> second chapter you don't like? ;-)
I just do not interpret James as you apparently do. I understand James to be
saying (in paraphrase) "If you do not have faith that is demonstrated by
works, then your faith is not real, it is 'dead'. If you have real faith,
you will have works." Faith is not simple belief, it also implies trust.
Even the demons believe in God, and tremble (James 2:19), but their
intellectual belief does not save them. James is clearly talking about this
distinction. To interpret James as meaning that works are required as
requisite for salvation, you must take portions of what he wrote out of
major and minor context.
>
> Just a reminder: as I read it, the presumption is salvation by faith
> (alone) through grace (alone).
>
> I asked:
>
>
> You replied:
>
>
> Entirely irrelevant to my question.
Not irrelevant, central to your question! A person does not become perfect,
then is saved. People are saved *from a state of sin*. To declare that a
person's actions must be in perfect alighment with Holiness before being
saved would completely destroy the whole concept of salvation. When we truly
accept Christ in our hearts, we are instantly "justified", legally accounted
to be perfect, in Christ, as a soverign act of God, whereby He attributes to
us the perfection of Jesus, based on our faith in Him. But our habits and
thoughts are not entirely and instantly renovated. It is only through a
process that lasts the rest of our lives are we "sanctified", that is, we
learn about God, we get to know Him personally, and learn to be obedient to
Him, and (hopefully) become more and more like Jesus in our character and
actions. This is a process that is never entirely completed in this life,
though some Christians get much farther along than others. The speed and
degree to which this happens is very much dependent on how freely we submit
to God, and how dilligently we pursue God through Bible study and prayer.
There *is no* Christian who walks an absolutely sinless life, in practice.
Our obedience to God brings reward, but it is our faith in Jesus as Savior
that permits God to account us as without sin. The Scriptural backing for
the above is extensive and comprehensive. Paul, for example, goes to great
length to explain these principles, and they are implicit throughout the New
Testament in particular, but also in the Old Testament (e.g. Psalm 51).
>
> "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up!"? It may be
> possible
> to defend these principles from the Bible, but that does not prohibit
> someone else from coming to a different, and equally defensible,
> conclusion
> from the same text. The Roman Catholic Church seems to have done so.
Nothing could prevent people from coming up with different interpretations
of anything, no matter how clearly it is written. :-)
> You said all Christians believe in salvation by faith, and in that is the
> implicit premise that works don't matter. The Roman Catholic church
> does not agree.
I didn't say (nor does the Bible say) that "works don't matter." Works are
important, and God expects us to produce works. They just don't help save
us.
> Maybe it would be a good idea for you to digest not only Roman Catholic
> doctrine, but also the reasons for each part of that doctrine, before
> expounding on what that doctrine is and why it's right (or wrong) in
> detail?
Well I didn't just speak on whim, I have read and heard quite a bit about
Roman Catholic doctrine over the years. But I am no expert, I readily
concede this.
> And that brings up the subject: Which uncontrivertable and
> universally-accepted authority gave *you* the right to decide and
> decree
> *for others* who is, and who is not, a real Christian? It is one
> thing to
> *opine*, based on your understanding of Scripture and your
> understanding of
> a particular point; it is quite another to presume that your personal
> understanding (and what you have been taught) is the Only Possible Way
> to
> read Scripture.
And I might ask, what authority gave you the right to post any advice to
anyone on anything? Duh! We all speak from what we know. We share our
knowledge and what we think with others on a wide variety of subjects. It
happens that I have been studying the Bible in a very serious way for over
30 years. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe that qualifies me to
express more than a neophyte's opinion on these issues. :-)
> Can you not understand that others might perceive such a decree as
> evidence
> of both pride and arrogance on your part, neither of which is likely to be
> regarded as consistent with Christian behavior?
When you speak with confidence from your (admitedly extensive) programming
experience, do you expect yourself to be accused of pride and arrogance?
I understand that Christians throughout the last 2000 years have been
persecuted and killed for simply sharing with others what Jesus said. Jesus
Himself was crucified, and He was perfect. Jesus made it very clear that if
the Master is persecuted, so will His followers. You think I should wait
until no one is going to disagree with me before stating things that I know
from long and dilligent study are the truth? Is that your philosophy
regarding your own areas of knowledge? It doesn't appear so to me. :-) In
fact, your vociferous response makes me understand the motivations behind
the Roman Inquisition a bit more clearly. What was that you were saying
about how Christians should act? ;-)
> Can you not also understand that there is no difference between accepting
> the teachings of your *denomination* about what is and is not a real
> Christian and the very attitudes in the Roman Catholic Church that Luther
> railed against in 1517?
It depends on the validity of those teachings, does it not? Luther opposed
particular Roman Catholic doctrines because those doctrines were in conflict
with the Bible. I do not belong to a 'denomination'. I don't have a problem
with denominations, but what human denominations say about God are not the
issue. It is what God has declared in His Word that matters. Not every issue
in the Bible is so clear that there can be no disagreement. But there is a
lot of disagrement over issues that are perfectly clear, where there should
be no disagreement. I can't help that. I had no intention of trying to
criticize Roman Catholic doctrine. If I had, I certainly would have picked
another topic in which to do so. If you recall, I was actually stating
something on which I thought (actually, I still do think) that the Catholic
Church agrees. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm... a 'God only knows' condition, it seems.
And you can't even ask their hairdresser, to know for sure.
>
> ... and you can, given the inclination, go to the place where others have
> reported seeing it or being on it, attempt to duplicate their actions and
> come back to report on the results.
So? As I stated, some facts can be proven, some cannot. For example, could a
person *prove* to their spouse or child that their love for them was real?
Not in the way you seem to expect here. Yet many people are completely
content and confident in such love. The situation of 'knowing' whether
another person is a 'real Christian' is precisely similar. We simply have no
way to know with absolute certainty what is in the heart of another person.
As I said, we live with these realities all the time, why should you find it
strange in this particular area?
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:Nyyof.30471$Y72.1143@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> God has given us the evidence of the entire creation.
>
> He has given us the Bible as evidence, in which God clearly warns us about
> the coming judgment. For every word of mercy and grace in the Bible, there
> are three words describing the judgment. The Bible declares that only a
> fool says there is no God.
>
> He has given His only Son to die for our sins, to save us from that
> terrible judgment.
>
> He has given us the evidence of the testimony of millions of Christians
> who know Him.
>
> We accept or reject these evidences as we choose. A holy and just God who
> has done all these things to save a sinful and rebellious people, then
> sees those He created, who depend on Him for their every breath, reject
> His evidence and His sacrifice, is going to do what? Give those who reject
> Him a gentle reprimand? Listen to those who reject Him for advice? He
> offers us the choice of following Him or rejecting Him. He clearly spells
> out the consequences of each choice in His Word, the Bible. Each of us
> gets what we choose. Those who reject a merciful God Who has sacrificed
> His Son to save them, get no say in the matter of consequences, nor should
> they. Do criminals get to decide the punishment for their crimes? Should
> they? Do they typically think the punishment is fair, or even admit their
> guilt? Such is the human heart.
There are a few important differences between
criminals-versus-democratic-government and sinners-versus-God. I'll list a
few, but surely people can come up with others:
* In most democratic governments, you aren't considered a criminal the
moment you are born, and are forced to actively rid yourself of your
criminality. E.g. you aren't a criminal because someone, a very long time
ago, commited "the original Crime" for which all citizens must now pay for.
* In most democratic governments, you DO have the option of changing the
laws. You can vote for representatives who support the laws you agree with,
and not vote for those that support the laws you disagree with.
* There are checks and balances in place specifically to ensure that the
government does not have "too much" power, because it is widely believed
that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
* The members of the government exists in the natural world. That is,
there is scientific evidence for the existence of the government. There are
experiments that anyone can conduct to convince themselves of the existence
of the government.
* In the same vein, the enforcers of the law (i.e. police officers)
exists in the natural world, so you can witness them too. You can ask such
an enforcer if you will be punished for such a crime, and not only you will
hear the answer, but everyone around you will again. It is not a case of "I
*know* in my heart of the enforcer's existence", but rather, multiple people
have all witnessed the same event, and thus can vouch for the same
interpretation of "what actually happened".
* Most punishments that the government issues are not "for all
eternity". Most of them are not even "for your entire life". If you don't
believe that you will get punished for breaking a law, you can try it, and
when you get punished (assuming the existence of the government here),
you'll learn your lesson, and then are re-released, and now you know better.
* If you don't like the government, you are free to leave for a country
where another government is in power. You have choices.
- Oliver
| |
|
| In article <RvAof.31380$Y72.15201@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>So?
This provides an experiential avenue unavailable in the other example you
gave, Mr McClendon.
>As I stated, some facts can be proven, some cannot. For example, could a
>person *prove* to their spouse or child that their love for them was real?
I did not speak of '*proving*' (* original), Mr McClendon... I spoke of
doing the same thing and consulting the results you find.
>Not in the way you seem to expect here.
I have not spoken of '*proofs*' (* original), Mr McClendon, nor do I
believe I have demonstrated an expectation of them.
>Yet many people are completely
>content and confident in such love. The situation of 'knowing' whether
>another person is a 'real Christian' is precisely similar. We simply have no
>way to know with absolute certainty what is in the heart of another person.
>As I said, we live with these realities all the time, why should you find it
>strange in this particular area?
Mr McClendon, I responded to this before... perhaps you missed it in your
snipping.
--begin quoted text:
.... because you cannot go to the place where others have reported the
results exist, attempt to duplicate their actions and come back to report
on the results. As I understand it the final determination of 'who is a
"real Christian"' (" original) is made post-mortem; near-death experiences
(some say it is the result of oxygen deprivation) might be as valid a
description of what happens post-mortem as near-New York experiences (in
the words of that Profound Philosopher, Bugs Bunny: 'Hoboken? Ooooooh,
I'm *dyin'*, again!') might be of Times Square.
--end quoted text
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> This sounds very unfair (how is it their fault?), and while I don't
> expect "real life" to be nescessarily be fair, I do expect a kind and
> loving omniscient God to be fair.
I've dealt with this before, in other posts. God is kind and loving. But He
is also holy and just. God has given the evidence of His creation, the
evidence of the Bible, the evidence of the testimony of Christians, and has
given His Only Son to die in payment for the sins of a rebellious and sinful
people. Those who choose to ignore all this are free to do so. But the Bible
says "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
(Hebrews 10:31) Jesus Himself said "And do not fear those who kill the body
but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28) God loves us and Gave His Son so
that we might be saved. We reject that Supreme Sacrifice to our extreme
peril.
>
> If these latter scriptures are true, then it seems better if Christians
> do NOT spread the Gospel. The less people know about God's Law, the more
> higher the chance that those people will be judged on the kindness of
> their heart, rather than whether they decided to believe one set of
> religious advocates over another.
There is a certain validity to your point. When someone is exposed to the
Gospel (Good News) of Jesus *and rejects it*, that rejected knowledge
becomes a condemnation. Also, imagine spending an eternity of suffering with
the memory of being told how to avoid it, and not believing. God has not
told us exactly what the judgment will be of those who have never heard the
Gospel. Apparently the severity of punishment will not be the same for
everyone, for Jesus said "And that servant who knew his master's will, and
did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of
stripes, shall be beaten with few." (Luke 12:47,48) But the Bible declares
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). No
one can stand before God sinless, unless their sins have been forgiven. So
everyone who does not accept the forgiveness provided by God's grace in
Jesus, will receive punishment for their sins. We do not know when we will
die and face God, and many people die every minute. So there really is an
urgency about all this, spreading the Gospel, and receiving it.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <37Bof.31637$Y72.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>But the Bible
>says "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
>(Hebrews 10:31)
How interesting... in common use 'to place in God's hands' is often a term
of resignation ('There's nothing more the doctors can do') or finality
('She got hit by a bus and died, her soul's in God's hands now'). While
it can be argued that such are 'fearful' situations I don't see the term
being applied as one of fear, in the fashion of '... and then hung by the
neck until you are dead, may God have mercy on your soul'.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Because their all-loving all-powerful Father gave them the gift of
> free will, they will be tortured forever and ever.
All have sinned against God. Those who hear about Jesus, and do not believe,
are condemned because they have sinned but rejected salvation. Those who do
not hear are condemned because they have sinned against God. Jesus Christ is
the only human who ever lived who never sinned. It is generally believed
(there is Scripture to support this) that babies and young children who die
before reaching an age to know right from wrong are considered innocent, and
are not condemned. The age when a child reaches this point (which varies
between individuals, and for some mentally handicapped individuals, may
never come) is called the "age of accountability". Only God knows when an
individual reaches this point.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <37Bof.31637$Y72.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> How interesting... in common use 'to place in God's hands' is often a term
> of resignation ('There's nothing more the doctors can do') or finality
> ('She got hit by a bus and died, her soul's in God's hands now'). While
> it can be argued that such are 'fearful' situations I don't see the term
> being applied as one of fear, in the fashion of '... and then hung by the
> neck until you are dead, may God have mercy on your soul'.
If you are an innocent victim, you s the law for protection. If you are a
criminal, you should fear the law, because it will hold you accountable.
Same principle here. In this instance, Jesus is speaking of God in the
latter sense.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:RvAof.31380$Y72.15201@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
> And you can't even ask their hairdresser, to know for sure.
>
>
> So? As I stated, some facts can be proven, some cannot. For example, could
> a person *prove* to their spouse or child that their love for them was
> real? Not in the way you seem to expect here. Yet many people are
> completely content and confident in such love. The situation of 'knowing'
> whether another person is a 'real Christian' is precisely similar.
Doc Dwarf asked a question (Who determines who gets saved?), Judson
answered it (God), then Judson asked a question (why object to the same
situation in determining who is a "real Christian?"), and Doc Dwarf answered
it (There exists a reproduceable experiment that gives evidence for the
existence of Mt. Everest). There is no "So?" to resolve here.
> We simply have no way to know with absolute certainty what is in the heart
> of another person. As I said, we live with these realities all the time,
> why should you find it strange in this particular area?
We simply have no way to know anything. Like you wrote earlier, you may
have evidence for the existence of Mt. Everest. For example, perhaps you've
saw it with your own eyes, touched it, and even climbed to its peak. But you
can't be sure your senses weren't lying to you. You might be very confident
in the existence of Mt. Everest, but you can never be sure of its existence.
HOWEVER! you can then tell other people why you are confident (I saw it,
touched it, etc.) and you can give them instructions on how they can attempt
to replicate the experiment that you did. If they come back and they say
they too saw it, and touched it, etc., then as a group, you and those other
people can become yet even more confident of the mountain's existence. If
they come back and say they didn't see any mountain, or did not feel
anything, then you might become LESS confident in its existence.
This is the scientific process: performing reproduceable experiments,
sharing results, and coming up with theories based on those results ("I
theorize that Mt. Everest exists, and here is the evidence supporting my
theory.")
Some theories come from evidence gathered via the scientific process,
and some theories do not. It is no surprise, then, that people might
approach these two different classes of theories with two different levels
of skepticism.
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:43:14 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>How interesting... in common use 'to place in God's hands' is often a term
>of resignation ('There's nothing more the doctors can do') or finality
>('She got hit by a bus and died, her soul's in God's hands now'). While
>it can be argued that such are 'fearful' situations I don't see the term
>being applied as one of fear, in the fashion of '... and then hung by the
>neck until you are dead, may God have mercy on your soul'.
It's popular to say that when the Bible refers to a terrible and awful
God, that the words don't really mean that. But the ancients Jews
wanted the Biggest and Baddest god around, and those were useful
characteristics for a god to have when surrounded by enemies.
| |
|
| In article <gsBof.31781$Y72.25759@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>If you are an innocent victim, you s the law for protection. If you are a
>criminal, you should fear the law, because it will hold you accountable.
>Same principle here. In this instance, Jesus is speaking of God in the
>latter sense.
Hmmmmmm... consider the logic: 'beneficent' is defined as 'doing or
producing good; especially : performing acts of kindness and charity'
(http://www.m-w.com); 'omnibeneficent' is a commonly-ascribed attribute of
God, the Christ is speaking of God as a judge, a judge who is always and
in all things (omni) performing acts of kindness and charity (beneficent)
is to be feared.
DD
| |
|
| In article <jhq5q155mjum1nhi0fcbgudpveuauiattp@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:43:14 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>It's popular to say that when the Bible refers to a terrible and awful
>God, that the words don't really mean that. But the ancients Jews
>wanted the Biggest and Baddest god around, and those were useful
>characteristics for a god to have when surrounded by enemies.
.... or when vanquished by them. The ever-popular Ps:LXXIX.6 - 7 (KJV) has
the plaintive plea of 'Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not
known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. For
they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling place.'
DD
| |
| Oliver Wong 2005-12-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:mkAof.31296$Y72.29808@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> And I might ask, what authority gave you the right to post any advice to
> anyone on anything? Duh! We all speak from what we know. We share our
> knowledge and what we think with others on a wide variety of subjects. It
> happens that I have been studying the Bible in a very serious way for over
> 30 years. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe that qualifies me to
> express more than a neophyte's opinion on these issues. :-)
From what I've seen on this newsgroup, when Chuck says something about
COBOL, he usually qualifies it with "According to such and such standards
document, this is the semantics of that statement, but note that
implementors occasionally deviate from the standard." This is in contrast to
"the Only Possible Way". I don't think Chuck is accusuing you of being a
neophyte with respect to the bible. Rather, I believe he is saying that
there is no reason to believe your interpretation is more "correct" or
"valid" than all other interpretations that have been put forward by others.
[snip]
>
> I understand that Christians throughout the last 2000 years have been
> persecuted and killed for simply sharing with others what Jesus said.
> Jesus Himself was crucified, and He was perfect. Jesus made it very clear
> that if the Master is persecuted, so will His followers.
I'm not sure what these sentences have to do with what follows ...
> You think I should wait until no one is going to disagree with me before
> stating things that I know from long and dilligent study are the truth?
... but just to provide a balanced view, non-Christians have also been
persecuted and killed for simply sharing with others that they don't believe
the same things as others. There was an CNN article on this, posted December
8th, 2005:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/1...r.ap/index.html
Professor Paul Mirecki was planning on teaching a course entitled
"Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other
Religious Mythologies".
<quote>
On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries
after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men
referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were
investigating.
</quote>
To be fair, Mirecki did send out an e-mail in which he did some
name-calling:
<quote>
A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred
to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing
intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat
face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.
</quote>
Obviously, I do not approve of Mirecki's e-mail, but I do not feel it
warranted a physical beating. Mirecki does not like religious-conservative
people. Fine. While perhaps prejudicial, he is entitled to his opinion.
<quote, from Slashdot
ref="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170687&cid=14225378">
If you look at Mirecki's areas of expertise his irritation with
fundamentalists becomes all the more understandable. His areas areas are
Ancient Mediterranean Religion, Early Christianity, and Coptic Papyrology.
That means that he knows a lot about about religion in the area in which
Christianity | | |