Sincerely,W.A. Scheer
dansgold@jps.net
==============================================================
Please see my comments below, interleaved for your perusal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Montoya [mailto:montoya@integrityonline1.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 6:50 PM
To: dansgold@jps.net
Subject: Fw: [cobu] Wasn't sure FRED -- Fred's response to Allen Scheer
- Fred's response to Allen
Scheer and all Allen's repsonse to
the response
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Mike,
I've read your commentary from your brother in
law. Here's my response. Be sure to give it to him.
Hi Mike:
I reviewed the LONG post as you requested and
the first thing I have to say is that the whole OneList method just really
stinks for engaging in any kind of online discussion or debate. I realize
that it's difficult to set up a
usenet group, but sooner or later I think you
are going to have to bite the
bullet.
Actually, it will be quite easy for me to set
up a localized USENET group on my server. This is actually a good idea,
and I may do it soon. My question is, how many of the users here are equipped
to read USENET news?
There is just no way to carry on a cogent thread
using the One List
system.
I have to disagree with this. Listservers have
been around for nearly as long as the Internet, long before the Internet
became a household word, and many, many cogent debates have been transacted
over them.
Perhaps it is all the new-fangled HTML formatting
that annoys you. It annoys me too. Whatever happened to plain ASCII text
messages with indented quotes?
Having griped enough, let me offer a few observations.
The whole exercise
seems to be a sort of bad-weed induced stream
of consciousness without form
or reason. I apply this not only to the theists
in the thread, but to your
atheist friend (Fred) as well. I am reminded
of Steven Hawkings lament
about the schism between philosophy and science.
There are so many posts
which evidence bad science, bad philosophy, outright
sophistry and a general
lack of reasonable perspective.
I generally go along with the tone and format
of the group of which I am a part.
ALLEN: Sooo ... it's everyone ELSE's fault? No,
no, no that just won't do. It's just too close to "I was only following
orders". I'd submit that we are all responsible for whatever tone we choose
to use.
I'd caution your friends that if you are going
to engage in a scientific
debate, that it must be not only scientifically
sound, but logically and
philosophically sound as well. I almost fell
out of my chair laughing when I
read Fred's comments about 'faith memes' and
elsewhere about verifiable
'acausal events' -- a clear case of attempting
to baffle with BS rather than
inform or enlighten.
I was not trying to baffle with BS. acausality
is a demonstrated fact as experiments with zero-point energy has shown.
ALLEN: Since quantum-level events are at
least possibly unbound by 4D physics, no such claim of "fact" is even testable,
much less provable.
When I respond or put forth something in this group, I have to be mindful that there is a broad range of understanding present here, and I tend to be less rigorous on purpose, in attempts to make my words more accessible. I have to speak to the audience, not at them. What good would it do if I adhered to rigorous precision and loose the main audience?
ALLEN: But it's bad faith to present such concepts as memes - undefined - and then claim that you have made an argument, when in fact all you have done is introduce a new term. This is little more than pretentious posturing.
As far as "faith memes", I merely put forward my hypothesis as a alternative and more plausible explanation of the behavior that is observed among Christians. In time, I may be in more of a position to actually conduct live research in this area of memetics. Also, if I recall, I did give references and links to excellent books and websites, respectively, where the more intellectually engaging is free to study for deeper understanding.
I thought it was Richard Dawkins' hypothesis. But wait .. can't I just claim that "I don't have the time to check out every crackpot claim that someone throws my way" as you do? Many of us have families, jobs, wives, run websites, etc.. - that gives you no special claim. You mentioned in earlier posts at least 6 or 7 titles for suggested reading .. how many are you willing to commit to in return? I have to say that it's an unfair test though ... I've already read all of the titles on your list them (if memory suffices) except for something called 'Contagious Thought' or 'Contagion' (correct me hear, I'm a bit shaky on the title) do I get my $1000 yet? Would you like to buy a vowel or use a lifeline? It may surprise you to know that a couple of those book are what led TO a theistic world-view rather than FROM it.
I half suspect that Fred is just having a little mean-spirited fun with y'all.
This is not the case at all. I have better things to do with my time -- it takes quite a bit of time to compose my thoughts and responses. If I want to have "mean-spirited fun", I'd go shoot a few skinheads or neo-Nazi types. I did not create this group to play "head games" with all those involved. I created this group in an effort to help those of us still suffering from the COBU experience.
I suggest that is possible to 'help' those recovering from cult involvement without trashing all theism and theistic world views.
For the record ... Richard Dawkins; 'meme' concept
is hardly an accepted scientific precept out side of a very narrow group.
I don't go by Richard Dawkins' meme concepts,
but that of Aaron Lynch, who has taken the metaphor and lack of rigor out
of the concepts of memetics and have placed them on sound scientific footing.
I entreat you to read Arron's paper:UNITS, EVENTS,
AND DYNAMICS IN MEMETIC EVOLUTION
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/memetheory.htm
I have met Aaron Lynch personally -- indeed,
I brought him down to our Skeptics group in Philadelphia -- PhACT, and
he was well received by everyone. For more information on PhACT -- Philadelphia
Association on Critical Thinking, http://www.phact.org
A fascinating read - thank you. It appears to me that all that Lynch has done is codify the concept so that it can be symbolically represented. How does this make it any more "scientifically" sound or true. I quote from his section on "Falsifiability": "Yet particular aspects of a specific memetic hypothesis can be falsified by less elaborate means as well. If a proposed model for the spread of anti-abortionism hypothesizes that the belief "abortion as wrong" leads adherents to raise more children than non-adherents, then the whole model could be falsified by, for instance, showing that non-adherents raise equal or greater numbers of children. If such data were gathered, and proven representative of whole societies over long time spans, then there would be no need to begin the more elaborate procedures of measuring additional parameters and performing computations." In fact, world wide there is no difference (according the A. Gutmacher Institute) By Lynch's own criteria ... all I can offer is a hearty Q.E.D. or R.I.P. as the case may warrant.
It seems to exist for no other purpose that to
attach a catch phrase
to the complete inability of evolutionists to
adequately describe the
'evolution' of consciousness and intelligence.
I'm afraid that you've only seen the "bad memetics"
information that has been circulating around, reducing memetics to nothing
more than "cocktail science." With every science you have an associated
pseudo science that also arises. The "cocktail" version of memetics, had
that been my first exposure, would have turned me off as well. I was fortunate
to come across Aaron's more scientifically rigorous Memetics first.
Making up a word is not quite the same thing
as developing a valid scientific theory. Yes, yes, yes ...
I've read Blackmore and Dawkins and Brodie, but
I've also read enough Aristotle to know bad logic when I see it. And I've
read enough Chomsky toknow that other, better theories abound.
Again, I ask you to review Lynch's paper in the
above link. I think you will agree that this is a much more rigorous and
scientifically sound version of memetics than Blackmore's cocktail version.
Concerning acausal events: All events are by
definition 'acausal' until a
cause is found. It is beyond pretension to make
a claim that certain
quantum-level events are 'acausal' when the events
have only been so
recently observed as to disallow experimentation
to deduce a cause!
There has been much debate over the years regarding
"hidden variables" -- I think the current consensus in the Physics community
is that there are none. Besides, in an otherwise perfect vacuum, what could
possibly "cause" particles to appear out of nowhere -- and to vanish back
into nowhere? Please search on "Zero-point Energy" for the tons of references
over this phenomena. Our human concepts of cause and effect simply fall
apart at the quantum level. Don't worry -- most scientists don't understand
it either, but it has been verified countless times in many experiments.
And anyone who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics is to be highly suspect.
It simply makes no sense whatsoever to our commonsense.
Hmmm ... lots of debate and 'consensus' do not
a valid theory make. Especially when "lots of scientists don't understand
it either", and anyone who claims to understand it is to be "highly suspect".
Just what kind of dogmatic drivel are you peddling? If they don't understand
it then how - logically - are they able to make any claims - negative or
positive - regarding a given 'acausality'. Quantum-level events appear
to be unbound by 4D physics. You claim (I think) to have read "Flatland"
... would not an event originating in a 3rd dimension, and terminating
(or traversing) a 2D plane "appear out of nowhere -- and to vanish back
into nowhere" if observed only within the 2D frame of reference? Of course
they would! Given that 10 or more dimensions are at least a mathematically
possibility ... how can you be so quick to make a claim of acausality?
All that can be claimed scientifically is that we have an event fro which
we know (presently) of no cause.
At one time in human history a rat running out
of a haystack was considered an
'acausal' event consistent with the spontaneous
generation of life theory.
Do you get this? People (SMART people at that)
actually believed - upon this
observation - that rats were spontaneously GENERATED
by haystacks!?!
They only believed that because they failed to
do simple experiments to prove otherwise. I forgot who did the experiment
with the maggots, which also was thought to be spontaneously generated.
The experiment was ridiculously simple -- two jars, a piece of meat in
each, one with the cover on and one with the cover off. The one uncovered
produced maggots, the one covered did not. End of story.
It was Louis Pasteur ... against the entire scientific
and academic community of his time, with the possible exception of Joseph
Lister. It is notable that Darwin's (then new) theories held considerable
sway in both the British and French academic and medical communities. His
experiments (which ultimately led to all that good stuff about microbes,
disease, penicillin, making better beer, etc.) were felt to be at odds
with 'spontaneous' (acausal?) theories of life origination. Oh well ...
The entire history of science militates against
the very possibility of an
'acausal' event within our space-time universe.
Now he'll want to drag out
quantum-tunneling or some other tasty bit ...
How about the decay of radioactive atoms? By all measures, the decay is totally random, you cannot predict when any particular nucleus decays. Nothing you can do to these atoms -- changing the number of nucleons notwithstanding -- affects their rate of decay, outside of accelerating them to relativistic speeds, in which case you're talking time dilation effects, which has nothing to do with the nucleus itself, but the effects of the special theory of relativity, where relative time simply slows down for relativistic frames of reference.
Like I said, our commonsense notions do not apply to the quantum world. Even the beginning of the universe is thought to be an acausal event. Please read The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.
Which leads me to the fundamental sophistry and
context-switching ... these
are great tactics in a political debate, but
are disastrous to good reason
in a scientific discussion.
Perhaps, when you are afforded more time, can
point out specific areas of my so-called "sophistry". It is easy to make
vague and off-handed criticisms. It is quite another to support them.
There are several points in the post where the
only retorts given to an argument is the logical
kin to 'Yes, but what
about ...' -- this is the classic sophist technique,
and serve more to
distract than anything else.
I await to see the specific areas in my debate
where I do this.
You do it in this very post ... see above where
you take off on a tangent: "How about the decay of radioactive atoms?"
It is considered sophistry to engage a second
particular before concluding the first, usually in a serial progression.
It is the very essence of Sophistry (or Sophism, to be absolutely correct)
to question everything without really wanting the answers. And isn't that
really what you are doing here in the whole thread of the discussion on
the website? You don't really seem to want to probe any deeper into any
question than is absolutely necessary to convince yourself that you don't
need to worry about probing any further. I've most or all of the books
that you listed - and yes I do understand them. Are you ready for my list?
Are you ready to step back and consider everything free from ANY preconceived
notions and stick scrupulously to what makes sense and what does not? CAN
you?
It hardly qualifies as a reasoned response. I'm
also choking on the concept that Fred would trot
out a few book titles, dare
everyone to read them, and then weasel out of
a similar challenge by saying
something to the effect of "I don't have time".
That's just plain hypocrisy.
No, it's plain honesty. I don't have the time
to check out every crackpot claim that someone throws my way. I do intend
to spend a some time on the so-called "Bible Codes" when I get a chance,
since I think I can do the most good here.
Eeek - save your time. You are brighter than
to waste your time on such trivia,
But I do have this little thing called
a Family -- wife and 3 kids, one of which is severely mentally handicapped
(autism). I also run 3 websites and a support group for parents in certain
dire situations. But my newly chosen profession should afford me more time
to pursue a few of these claims once I get the details worked out. So stay
tuned.
Debunking the "Bible Codes" will require some
effort on my part -- it's not just a matter of reading the books, etc.
Besides, I did give a reference to a site where
the debunking has already been done for the "evidence of Christian Faith"
book. It was done on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Why should I spend time
re-inventing the wheel?
Please forward a link ... more grist, must have more grist!
It's a poor warrior - he who is afraid to enter
the fray. I pray that I
never make a claim to erudition so cheaply.
Afraid to enter the fray? What have I been doing
all this time? I have practically thrown myself to the wolves in this group.
Nahh, that's not really fair. Most of the
people you are arguing with have neither your intelligence or quickness
of wit. (That's intended as an insult to none by-the-way) That hardly equates
to throwing yourself to even a cub, much less a pack. It doesn't automatically
guarantee your success, at any rate. It's still quite possible that you
are wrong - about a great many things.
As far as erudition, it is not a cheap
claim. Sir, I have spent many, many years of my life adding to my storehouse
of knowledge.
But so have many others, including myself.
You are to be commended, but you (and I for that matter) are hardly special.
Intellectual rectitude is as damning as any other kind, and should be more
so. The claim is no better that that of someone who has memorized the whole
Bible and understands none of it. It reminds me of an old line (and I think
you'll like this) that I've used when I get into a discussion with some
fellow Christian who (Lord help them) clearly has no clue about some matter
or other, but makes the "I have the mind of Christ" claim. The retort is
always "Give it BACK - you're RUINING IT!" You can do better than this.
The very books you suggest are so full of logical evasions as to almost
force you to reject the conclusions at first gloss. But you seem to accept
the conclusions blissfully unaware of the underlying illogic. That hardly
amounts to erudition or a "storehouse" of anything of value. Look, I know
I have a somewhat nasty tone, but I assure this is all meant in good faith.
If I didn't think you were up to it, I'd nod my head knowingly, say nothing
and move on ...
Well, I guess some will always in the wings
to throw cheap shots at my hard work and accomplishments.
My apologies for any cheapness. Good quality
ammo is hard to come by these days. But lets be clear here ... putting
in a whole bunch of hard work is of no value unless the work results in
something of value. If all your hard work has resulted in your acceding
to a dogmatic belief in what some philosophers (not all of them Christian
or even theists for that matter) call "promissory scientism" or any number
of positions which are incorrect ~ again, of what value?
In any case, I look forward to taking you on
one-on-one.
Well, jeez, Fred - is this about "taking me on"? That sounds awfully as though you intend to simply beat up on me any way that you can. Didn't you just chide me (and perhaps correctly) for taking "cheap shots"? I'll be the first to say that if anyone can provide the necessary evidence to prove atheism, et al ... I'll be the first to raise my hand and join up! I used to BE an atheist. I am now a committed Christian. I'll be the first to admit that my previous atheism was mostly unfounded and serves as a terrible straw-man to beat up on. But I have to consider ALL of the evidence. I have to read, listen to and carefully consider those views which directly oppose my present understanding re: Christ, God etc. It is precisely that approach which has served to confirm my relationship with the God who IS there. Can you do the same from your position? Can you suspend your disbelief as mush as I suspend my belief so that we can - in the words of Christ - "reason together"?
I for one look forward.
Grace and Peace
William Allen Scheer
=========================================================
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>
No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence
of any
extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.
I'd hate to have to be in your shoes when you
are weeping
and gnashing your teeth as you will stand
before a Holy God
that desires that none should perish.
Best regards de Raynard & Lena Merritt
Now the God of peace, that brought again from
the dead our
Lord Jesus, that
great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood
of the
everlasting covenant,
make you perfect in every good work to do
his will, working
in you that which
is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus
Christ; to whom
be glory for ever
and ever. Amen.
==========================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Fred:
Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you sense or
measure the
presence of your God in an objective manner?
Bob:
Fair enough. I'll answer your question as honestly as I can, and
afterwards I have a question for you that I'd like you to answer as
honestly as you can.
I sense the presence of
God by answered prayers, a fulfilled and joyful
life (I'm not claiming "happiness" as the world defines it, but what
the
Bible calls joy), peace, assurance of eternal life, hope, meaning and
purpose, and significance. I'm sure you'll chalk all of this up to
psychological phenomena, but as I said, this is honest, from the heart.
Is it objective? No. Is it real? It's as real as anything in life.
Okay, now it's your turn.
You made the claim that "there is no way to
sense or determine their [God's] presence." Prove this statement --
and
no diversion tactics either.
Fred:
What you chose to believe does not reality make.
Even if
1000 or 1 million people chose to believe it
STILL does not
reality make. Millions thought there was going
to be a major
Y2K crisis, but it didn't happen. Many of the
course of
history though the world would come to an end,
and yet here
we are. Come on, Bob! I give you more credit
for
intelligence than this!!!!!
Bob:
I agree with you that no amount of believing by any number of people
make
anything a reality. But this isn't the argument here -- you've gone
off
on a tangent. You made the statement that "if there are extra-universal
beings, chances are that such beings would be unaware of our existence."
On what basis can you make an assumption such as this? What I'm saying
is
that part of the American definition of God, if there is one, is that
He
is all-knowing.
Fred:
No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence
of any
extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.
Bob:
I believe the word atheist comes from the Greek "atheos." In Greek,
the
prefix "a" means "no" and "theos" means "God." In other words, "no
God."
What part of "no" don't you understand? :-) Sorry, Fred, I couldn't
resist that one!
Fred:
You are not hearing me. See, because I say that
"it cannot
logically be ruled out", you are ready to rush
right in with
your particular brand of god. There is a flip
side -- your
brand of god cannot logically be ruled in, either!!!!!
Bob:
No, I'm not rushing you to believe in the God that I believe in, but
I
think deep inside you do believe that there is Someone out there greater
than us. Not to play psychologist here, but I just think because of
our
very negative experience in COBU, you're afraid that the God out there
is
like the god of COBU. I can assure you He's much more kind and patient
and gracious.
Fred:
See, Bob, you did it. You have rushed in with
your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That
there's an
infinite number of possibilities. That means
the Greek Gods
are a possibility. That means that the roach
you crushed
underfoot this morning is a possibility. That
means that my
pet Kid with Ant Farm is a possibility. Or that
the universe
is just an experiment in some vast laboratory.
Or a bacteria
your body just killed. Or anything any fertile
mind on this
planet can dream up. And an infinite number more.
Not one can be proved to be more valid than another,
and
therefore that means that not god notion can
be preferred
over another. And since there is no way to show
or prove or
demonstrate that ANY of these scenarios is the
"true
scenario for god(s)", since their objective effect
on the
universe is nil, the ONLY way anyone can choose
has to be
based on personal preference and/or acculturation.
That is to say, there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to
choose the
"true" or "correct" god.
Bob:
Since I see you as an intelligent person, you should know that what
we're
after is not what's possible. That's a complete waste of time. What
we're
after is what is PROBABLE. This reminds me of the argument in the sitcom
"Just Shoot Me" that I saw last night. Two characters were arguing
whether or not the moon landing ever took place. Is it possible that
it
didn't? Of course. Is it probable? Unlikely. What's the probability
of
the roach being a god? Zilch -- so why bring it up? Where's the honest
skeptic I thought I was talking to?
About your statement, "there
is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to choose the 'true' or
'correct' god" -- in order for you to make this statement and
back it
up, you'd have to be the all-knowing God! I say that because in order
for
you to prove it, you'd have to have searched the infinite number of
ways
of choosing the true god, and found that they all fell short.
On your comment, "their
[gods] objective effect on the universe is nil,"
consider the following: 2 billion of the 6 billion people alive today
call themselves Christians (not necessarily evangelical). I realize
that
doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it does show that Jesus has
influenced the lives of billions of people -- how they think, believe,
and live. If that's not affecting the universe, I don't know what is.
By
that fact alone, Jesus' life and teachings are worth examining. An
honest
skeptic, I think, would do that.
Fred:
There may have been a person, a man, who called
himself
Jesus. I don't know.
Bob:
Ah, there's the honest skeptic. Thank you. Why not continue to do
research on this? We're not talking about a crackpot theory here.
Fred:
But do I buy any of the fantastic
claims he supposedly did? No. Reanimation? Definitely
not!
There is NO convincing historical evidence that
would show
that anyone in that era became reanimated. Missing
bodies
and the like ARE NOT evidence of reanimation!
There are more
plausible explanations for those, and they are
to be
considered before you jump on the more fantastic.
Bob:
Remember the famous line from Jerry Maguire? "Show me the money!" Fred,
show me the more plausible explanations. Actually, the alternatives
I've
heard are more "fantastic" than the one the authors of the Bible
recorded.
Fred:
You can have living legends. Jesus may have been
a living
legend. Show me the evidence that those fantastic
claims
took place --
Bob:
Haven't we been on this merry-go-round before? Okay, one last ride:
1. Noteworthy archaeologists, not necessarily Christian, have stated
that
the Bible is historically reliable. (I gave you the names of those
archaeologists in the past.)
2. In these historically reliable documents, Jesus is recorded as
claiming that He is the Son of God.
3. Knowing our skepticism, He validated this "fantastic claim," by
doing
miracles so that we may believe.
4. Jesus also predicted that He would die and rise from the dead to
prove
that He is the Son of God.
5. Jesus is crucified and dies by asphyxiation (sp) and is pierced
through the heart with a spear to make sure He is dead.
6. The Jewish high priests, who knew about Jesus' claim that He would
rise from the dead, tries to make sure that it does not happen by a)
placing a large stone in front of the stone; b) having highly trained
and
efficient Roman soldiers guard the tomb; and c) putting a Roman seal
on
the tomb, meaning that if anyone broke the seal by moving the stone,
that
person would do so at the risk of death. In addition, Jesus' body was
wrapped with 200 pounds worth of cloths and spices and other stuff
the
Jewish people used to bury their dead.
7. Despite all of the above, the stone is rolled away, the seal is
broken, the Roman soldiers are left in fear and astonishment, and the
most closely watched and guarded body in Palestine disappears and is
never found!
8. Jesus appears to more than 500 witnesses over a period of 40 days.
9. Jesus appears to Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee (from the same sect
as the
high priests who had Jesus crucified) who had been zealously persecuting
Christians by putting them in prison and even to death. Saul is converted
and becomes a zealous missionary, church planter, apologist for
Christianity, and the author of 13 New Testament books. We know him
as
the Apostle Paul.
10. Skeptics who doubted Jesus when He made those "fantastic claims"
are
converted and become church leaders. Among these are his own brothers,
who thought He was a lunatic. One of them, James, becomes a leader
of
leaders in Jerusalem and writes one of the books of the New Testament.
The other, Jude, also writes one of the letters of the New Testament.
11. Those disciples who ran away like cowards (this isn't to belittle
them, I'm sure I would have done the same) when Jesus was arrested,
become some of the most courageous people the world has ever known.
This
includes Peter who denied Jesus because he was afraid for his life.
Peter
would later write two books of the New Testament and then, according
to
tradition, die a martyr's death.
12. All twelve apostles (Judas was replaced by Matthias), according
to
tradition, choose to die a martyr's death rather than deny that Jesus
rose from the dead.
There are other evidences that I could provide, but I'm not so sure
if
that would make any difference anyway. Jesus said, "If they do
not
listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if
someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). I sincerely hope this will
not
be said of you, Fred.
Bob San Pascual
========================================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
>
> Fred:
> I know I'm speaking to theists, so I speak
to my audience,
> in order to bridge the gap. Mark my words,
I'm as atheistic as they come. But from a standpoint of logic, I
hold that there's an infinity of possibilities, as you know, including
my pet "Kid with Ant Farm" god. But I declare each and every of the
infinity of possibilities irrelevant, since there is no way to sense
or determine their presence. Also, if there are extra-universal beings,
chances are that such beings would be unaware of our existence. The microbes
on your keyboard in relation to you are MUCH BIGGER than we
> are in relation to the entire universe. In
other words, to say that we are "mere dustspecks" in the universe would
be a gross overstatement.
> Bob:
> Talk about assumptions, Fred, there's a couple
of bad ones
> you made here. First, that "there is no way
to sense or determine their [God's] presence." You close yourself off to
sensing the presence
> of God and then you make the statement that
one cannot sense the presence of God. That's not an honest skeptic to me.
>
Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you sense or
measure the
presence of your God in an objective manner?
> Second, "if there are extra-universal
> beings, chances are that such beings would
be unaware of our existence." This one is pretty bad, since most people
who live in the
> U.S., not just Christians, would define God
as someone who is at the very least all-knowing.
>
What you chose to believe does not reality make.
Even if
1000 or 1 million people chose to believe it
STILL does not
reality make. Millions thought there was going
to be a major
Y2K crisis, but it didn't happen. Many of the
course of
history though the world would come to an end,
and yet here
we are. Come on, Bob! I give you more credit
for
intelligence than this!!!!!
> Fred:
> Not just "a", but any number of extra-universal beings which us primitives
> would label as "gods". I cannot logically rule that possibility out,
so I
> must accept that. But there is no reason to suppose that the "gods
out there",
> if any, are anything like the Christian's notion of god.
>
> Bob:
> This is exactly what I'm saying. If you can't
logically
> rule out the
> possibility that there is a God, then you're
not an
> atheist -- you're an
> agnostic.
>
No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence
of any
extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.
> This is more open-minded to me, Fred.
Why not stop
> vacillating between atheism and agnosticism
depending on who you're
> talking to and at least stick with your own
statement that you "cannot
> logically rule that possibility out"? Be consistent
and stop being like Jello
> that can't be pinned down. :-)
>
You are not hearing me. See, because I say that
"it cannot
logically be ruled out", you are ready to rush
right in with
your particular brand of god. There is a flip
side -- your
brand of god cannot logically be ruled in, either!!!!!
> Fred:
> It's the way I choose to live my life, since I am unable
> (let alone
> unwilling) to worship an infinite number of possible gods.
> (!)
>
> Bob:
> Now we're getting to the crux of the matter.
I appreciate
> your honesty here. Seems to me your unwillingness
to worship God has
> led you to denying there really is a God which
led you to refuse to
> honestly examine the evidences people have
been giving you over the past
> few weeks. And I'm not talking about the issue
of homosexuality.
>
See, Bob, you did it. You have rushed in with
your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That
there's an
infinite number of possibilities. That means
the Greek Gods
are a possibility. That means that the roach
you crushed
underfoot this morning is a possibility. That
means that my
pet Kid with Ant Farm is a possibility. Or that
the universe
is just an experiment in some vast laboratory.
Or a bacteria
your body just killed. Or anything any fertile
mind on this
planet can dream up. And an infinite number more.
Not one can be proved to be more valid than another,
and
therefore that means that not god notion can
be preferred
over another. And since there is no way to show
or prove or
demonstrate that ANY of these scenarios is the
"true
scenario for god(s)", since their objective effect
on the
universe is nil, the ONLY way anyone can choose
has to be
based on personal preference and/or acculturation.
That is to say, there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to
choose the
"true" or "correct" god.
> Bob:
As far as your points above, I've
written
> previously that by Jesus rising from the dead,
He validated His claims to be the
> Son of God.
>
> Fred:
> Well, that's what the writing says. As to whether that's more than
legend, I doubt it.
>
> Bob:
> You've refused to even acknowledge Jesus as
a historical
> figure, when the
> evidence is overwhelmingly for it.
>
There may have been a person, a man, who called
himself
Jesus. I don't know. But do I buy any of the
fantastic
claims he supposedly did? No. Reanimation? Definitely
not!
There is NO convincing historical evidence that
would show
that anyone in that era became reanimated. Missing
bodies
and the like ARE NOT evidence of reanimation!
There are more
plausible explanations for those, and they are
to be
considered before you jump on the more fantastic.
> Even liberal theologians have given up
> trying to make Jesus a "legend" as you call
it. They're
> busy with other
> tactics now.
>
You can have living legends. Jesus may have been
a living
legend. Show me the evidence that those fantastic
claims
took place --
>
-Fred
================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Bob:
Now this again is more real as I see it.
You've got issues with
authority, not with the evidences for
the historicity of Jesus or
with the existence of God. The good news,
Fred, is that you can speak
with God- He's waiting to hear from you.
But he won't talk directly back. I may as well
be speaking to a wall or my favorite
stuffed animal. You just don't get it, do you?
I talk to you, you talk back. I don't get the
same level of dialog with the supposed "God".
It is completely one way, and then I'm left
to my own imagination or delusions for the rest.
Been there, done that, have no desire to repeat
it.
As far as my having a problem with authority?
You're 100% correct. Authority is not to
be trusted, and authority cares nothing for the
individual. I have had it dealing with
various authorities in the government -- child
snatching social workers, gestapo police
with a "arrest first, ask questions later" attitude,
and the like. The police authority lies
through its teeth -- I've seen and experience
this first hand. Child-protective authorities
are inept and insane -- and I've experienced
this first hand.
Authorities must be kept in check and not allowed
to run rampant. At least I have some
measure of hope of dealing with these earthy
authorities, and as a last resort, I can
always run.
But now, you are telling me that I should just
blindly trust an extra-universal "authority"
-- one that I would have no control or influence
over whatsoever, were one to exist. Any
conscious being(s) with THAT much power would
scare the willies out of me!
Fortunately, there is no reason to suppose such
a frightening "authority" exists.
No one was there for me in the beginning. It was
just me and my books. That's all I
needed. It taught me to be self-reliant and independent.
These qualities are fierce within
me, now, having served me well for most of my
lifetime. You could drop me off nearly
anywhere in the civilized world with just the
clothes on my back and in a year or two I'd
be doing well. I have built myself from the bottom
up, and can do so again at any time.
Bob:
> b) God gave us a moral law that reflects
His
> character and is good for individuals
and for society;
Fred:
I don't need anyone to define morals for me. Empathy is all
I need
to determine my "moral compass", as it were. Through empathy,
all
things moral become plainly obvious.
Bob:
I think you mean to say here that you
don't want anyone to define
morals for you. It's that authority issue
again rearing up its ugly head. I
don't want just anyone defining my morals
for me either, but the God
of Scriptures (please do not read the
God of COBU here), my heavenly
Father, gives me guidelines and pearls
of wisdom so as to live my life to
the fullest -- so I can know joy, peace,
and fulfillment -- and so can
you.
I seek out my own joy and peace, and create my
own morals. If you want to follow the
"morals" of men from 2000+ years ago, more power
to you. I prefer to think about
everything and decide and choose for myself --
taking on the responsibility for myself
and those I care about, rather than abrogating
that responsibility to someone else.
Bob:
> c) He expects us to conform to this
law for our own benefit as
well as for His glory; and
Fred:
Problem is, there is no way to distinguish this from the writings
of
another man. And I am fully capable of establishing my own "laws"
to
follow.
Bob:
Again you're starting with a false assumption
when you say, "there
is no way to distinguish this from the
writings of another man." Garbage
in,garbage out. Why not rather begin with
something like, "What do the
Scriptures say and why?"
Because I don't trust the scriptures, right? They
are NOT my standards of truth. They are
your standards of truth. I must claw, test, search,
and reason my way to the truth -- not
trust someone else to tell me.
Throw away those old COBU lenses with the
Stewart audio when you pick up the Bible.
I can distinguish between COBU rhetoric and the bible. I see clearly
how Stewart used
what is already there in the bible to further his cause.
It wasn't easy when I first
began to do that back in '89, but I'm
so glad now that I can
distinguish much better the voice of God
from the voice of Stewart.
Bob:
> d) He gives us His Spirit to empower
us to live in a way that's
pleasing to Him and fulfilling to ourselves.
Fred:
That is just an emotional "rah-rah". We already have the power
within ourselves to do great "good" and great harm. The choice
always has
been ours. Religionism serves merely as a context to achieve
some of
ones' internal greatness. The context is unnecessary -- what
is necessary is
self-esteem and self-reliance.
Bob:
Preoccupation with self is what alienated
us from God to begin with.
I do believe in having a healthy self-esteem,
but I disagree with you on
what the source of that is. God didn't
create you and me to live for
self, but to live for Him.
God didn't create you and me. Our parents did
-- they got the process initiated, and the
rest is a matter of genetics and embryogensis.
Genotypes are converted into phenotypes
by a very structured process that roughly traces
our evolutionary development.
Now here's the paradox: when we lose
our lives, we find
them. When we stop pursuing happiness,
then we will find happiness.
I do not pursue happiness -- directly. I set certain
goals for myself, and when I achieve
them, I get a sense of fulfillment. I am most
happy when I engage in learning and in
helping others. I take my fate and my future
into my hands and create hope for myself and
for those I care about.
As far as selfishness, we are all ultimately
selfish -- it is an integral part and
construction of our human nature. The issue is
whether or not the actions we take with
regards our selfishness helps others around us.
-Fred
=========================================================
From: Logbearer@aol.com
In a message dated 1/20/00 2:17:34 fred@mitchellware.com, you wrote:
<<You have rushed in with your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That
there's an
infinite number of possibilities.>>
There may be an infinite number of possibilities, but there is only
one
reality. If there is no God, about 95% of the world's population
throughout
history has been defining it's existence on the non-reality of spiritual
identity. If there is a God, only one explanation is accurate,
only one
answer is correct. There cannot be as many valid explanations
of the true
nature of God as there are people who care to propose a theory.
If you
really want to know, sincerely, then there is only One who can answer
you,
only One you should reasonably ask. The proof is in the answer,
if you are
willing to listen.
In Christ, Amy
=============================================
Awesomely well said sister!!
=========================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Raynard wrote:
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>
No, I'm an
atheist. I hold that the existence of any
extra-universal
being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.
I'd hate to have to be in your shoes when you
are weepingand
gnashing your teeth as you will stand before
a Holy God
that desires that none should perish.
No, I would hate to be in your shoes, or rather in your death bed, when
you realize that
you wasted your entire life on an empty promise. Well, I suppose you'll
never quite
realize that, because your brain will shut down forever.
I play the probabilities. It is highly unlikely that any type of "god"
exists, and even if one
does, still unlikely to be the Christian god. We are talking infinitesimally
small
probabilities here.
I mean, would you bet your life on the lottery? I wouldn't.
-Fred
==================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Hi, Fred,
I realize that I don't answer every point you make and I certainly want
to give you the freedom to not respond to what I write. Still, I noticed
in the dialog below, unless I missed it, you didn't respond to this
point
I made in my last post: "Okay, now it's your turn. You made the claim
that 'there is no way to sense or determine their [God's] presence.'
Prove this statement -- and no diversion tactics either." I know in
the
heat of debate, it's easy for me and others to overstate our cases,
so
I'm guessing that's what happened here. No biggie.
I also noticed that you didn't respond to the 12 points I made for the
evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, although I do acknowledge that
we've been back and forth on it already. Of course, if you want time
to
research the subject, I think that would be a great idea. I do hope
that
you will approach it as an honest skeptic rather than as an evangelist
or
apologist for agnosticism/atheism. There's a big difference. To be
honest
with you, I'm not really a debater; I'm more of a "reasoner" if there's
such a word. I'd like to keep these conversations going if we can really
reason together and consider one another's opinions. It may appear
otherwise, but I don't really get much out of proving anything to
anybody. I've done what I've done in the hope that you will come to
know
the God who loves you and His Son who died for you.
I do appreciate again your honesty about the issue of authority. Let
me
reciprocate in kind. I grew up under an authoritarian father until
I was
18. At that time, I left my family to move in to the Lamb House under
the
rule of another authoritarian leader, Jim Greiner. Then I moved in
to the
Young Sheep House under the authoritarian leadership of Stewart. (I
hope
you don't think I'm a masochist!) The point is that I know how authority
can be and often is abused by those in power. Jim and Stewart, however,
didn't accurately represent God to us. Their God was indeed frightening
in a wrong way. In COBU I rarely felt assured that I was pleasing Him
or
that He would accept me into heaven. I've found the real God to be
much
different. I pray that you would take the time to read the Bible and
learn of Him, for He is "gentle and humble in heart, and you will find
rest for your soul." (By the way, I've forgiven my father, Jim, and
Stewart. I read Jim's letter on Mike's web site and was very moved
by
it.)
On your statement, "Then break the circle by showing clear, convincing,
unquestionable proof," I can't make a man see what he doesn't want
to
see. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If you limit yourself
to accepting only the types of evidences that you want, then you probably
will never get them. On the other hand, if you open your mind to
receiving other types of evidences such as archaeological and historical
ones, then they are out there for you to research. I and others on
this
list have given you some starting points already. I hope you show you're
really an honest skeptic by researching these evidences instead of
discarding them as just another "crackpot theory" to use your term.
You also wrote, "But now, you are telling me that I should just blindly
trust an extra-universal 'authority.'" Fred, if nothing else, I think
I've shown you through the last few weeks that my faith is not a blind
one -- it rests on evidences which you have yet to honestly investigate
-- nor would I ever call you or others to blindly trust in anyone.
This
statement is pejorative and, in my opinion, driven more by emotions
than
by intellect. Of course, I respect your emotions as well as your
intellect -- I'm just saying that your statement is not accurate.
Hey Fred, is it "faith or feelings," brother? Be direct! (LOL!)
Bob San Pascual
========================================================
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>
I mean, would you bet your life on the lottery?
I wouldn't.
-Fred
I am not playing the lottery with my life here...last I checked we were
not speaking of gambling, but faith which is not a gamble. I know that
I know that I know, that The Blood of Jesus has set me free.
The Blood of Jesus can set you free as well.
The Blood of Jesus can make you whole again.
Best regards de Raynard & Lena Merritt
===============================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>
Today I have a special guest contribution to the discussion on proof
for
skeptics, and Fred. From our brother Rob Machell,
it is a little
lengthy but worth the read. ML
December 30th, 1999
Dear brothers and sisters on the ex-COBU onelist;
Concerning 'proof' for the existence of God and
the lordship of Christ for
skeptics:
I would like to say that there is no proof positive
to satisfy the empirical
demands of an unbeliever, and that the 'proof'
for Jesus is ultimately a
matter of individual spiritual experience.
Does not the Bible itself tell
us in the first place that "without faith it
is impossible to please Him"?
If he wanted to, God could crack open the sky
and shake his fist at everyone
on the planet; but this is not the way he purposes
to do things. Instead he
has given human beings plenty of roan so that
he might test them from behind
the scenes and ultimately judge them for their
choices. But he does call
us, and some more persistently than others.
When I was being 'drawn', it was through the
realities of my own human
circumstances. I was unhappy with myself
in ways that I could not fully
identify and I knew I needed something; and I
was increasingly serious about
trying to find it, even though I did not know
what that something was. But
I did NOT think it was Christianity or anything
that remotely resembled the
insipid religion of my father, a part-time liberal
Protestant minister.
There were much trendier things to try on for
size at the time, and I was
attracted to them instead.
I had met Skip O'Neill a couple of times before
he became a Christian; and
when I ran into him again in the very early days
of the fellowship I began
to hang around, at first because of my regard
for him personally, but
increasingly because I was fascinated by what
all the brothers and sisters
seemed to have in common. But I knew I
could not share it with them because
I simply did not believe as they did, and nothing
any of them said was able
to change that for me for nearly a year, as I
came and went as an outside
observer. I must have visited 128 S. Church
St. and later 137 a total of
more than fifty times in this basic state of
mind. I finally reached a
point of decision when I considered the statement
of Jesus someone showed
me, "If any man's will is to do his (God's) will,
he SHALL KNOW if my
teaching is from God (or not)." As this was being
applied, the proposition
for me was that the God of Jesus Christ was willing
to meet me half way. I
knew that I was a sinner and I wanted to become
a different person if I
could; I was willing to commit everything to
him if he would 'keep his end'
and reveal himself in my life in some way that
would dispel the
uncertainties of my mind. It was like putting
out my arm beside a moving
locomotive to see if anyone would reach down
and pull me on board; my life
was swept up and within three weeks I was transformed
into a zealous
fanatic!
I could try to delineate the specifics of what
took place that changed
things for me, but it would not qualify as proof
for the existence of God by
any rational set of criteria and would be less
meaningful on the whole for
someone who does not know me personally than
it would be for someone who
does know me. Nevertheless, I am convinced
it is vain imagination to think
that anything we can say amounts to more than
giving 'testimony' to those
who do not know the Lord. This is not to
say that faith is contrary to
reason, nor that it is inappropriate to defend
the faith from the attacks of
critics; but the most brilliant apologetics can
do no more than 'neutralize'
opponents of the Gospel, bringing them 'back
to square one!.
My experiences in the aftermath of my personal
compact with the Lord
convinced me of his presence in my life; but
five months down the road, one
of the unique events of my Christian life took
place. I was in Pottstown,
PA with two sisters where we had a temporary
mini fellowship'. The sisters
lived in the first floor apartment where we invited
people to come meet with
us, while I lived in a separate rented roan on
the second floor. In the
middle of the night, one of our visitors from
the evening before came back
very angry and a little bit drunk, pounding on
the door. The sisters tried
to tell him to go away, but he pushed his way
inside and started a very ugly
scene. I woke up when I heard the cxx=tion,
and quickly realized who it
was, what he wanted and what would happen if
I went downstairs. I knew that
he was seeking to shake off the conviction of
the Holy Spirit by
intimidating us. If he could make us afraid
of him, then he did not have to
respect or believe the Word that he had heard
through us a few hours
earlier. I knew that when I went downstairs
it would be mano a mano, but
I could not leave my sisters alone; and I knew
that I was being called to
put my body between this man and Jesus.
When I got to the bottom of the stairs, he immediately
grabbed me and
slammed my back against the wall; which prompted
me to say, "Danny, why
don't you either just get saved right now, or
beat me up right now!" Somehow
we ended up in the kitchen, where he used his
karate techniques to punch,
kick and flip me around for ten or fifteen minutes.
I made no effort to
defend myself, nor even to avoid his blows; though
I answered him 'blow for
blow' with the Gospel. He was holding back,
pulling all his punches--
hoping, I believe, to hurt me, but not to injure
me. (As it turned out, I
had only one small bruise the next day, and I
went to work like nothing had
happened.)
When he finally gave up on me, I found myself
in the doorway between the
kitchen and the dining room praying. The
sisters were in the dining room
also praying. He was standing over me,
noticeably shaking as he tried to
figure out what he was going to do next.
Then he said, "Becky, stand up!
I'm going to rape you!" He stepped over me to
get through the doorway; then
as he took another step toward her, I began to
speak in tongues, my voice
seeming to me like a loudspeaker. At first
he nearly jumped out of his
skin. Then he tried to hold my mouth shut
with his hand, and then to hold
my jaw closed with an arm-lock around my head;
but he could not. Then he
suddenly broke and his spirit surrendered; and
when I finished speaking in
tongues a minute later, he waited as the three
of us continued to pray for a
long five or ten minutes. He nearly prayed
with us before he left, and he
tried to close the door behind himself and came
back in several times before
he did leave. Then he came back every evening
for about a week and brought
a Bible with him, and also brought a friend with
him who likewise brought a
Bible; and he told every visitor who came to
pay attention to what we said.
It is the one and only time in my Christian life
that I have ever spoken in
tongues. The scripture comes to mind, "Tongues
are a sign... for
unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers
but
for believers." The most remarkable part of this
story, accordingly, is what
took place about two months earlier in Allentown.
In the living room at
137, late at night after everyone else had left
or gone to bed, three
brothers were laying hands on me and praying
for me to receive 'the baptism
of the Spirit'. For more than an hour,
two of these brothers were speaking
in tongues like it was champagne being sprayed
around the locker room after
a World Series championship victory. Three
interpretations were spoken
personally to me, the prime one coming in two
distinct halves that seemed at
the time to bear no particular relation to one
another. The first half of
this message began with the words, "By your faith
this gift has been given
to you;" and the second half began with the words,
"I am your Shepherd and
you are my sheep, and I am watching over my sheep
to protect them." Nothing
whatsoever happened to me that night, and I was
utterly bewildered at how
this could make sense in light of the words,
"this gift has been given to
you," especially when I could see the ecstatic
experience being given to my
brothers right in front of me. But everything
made sense when this word
ultimately came to pass in Pottstown, and the
significance of the two halves
and how they belonged together as one prophecy
was truly amazing to me!
Several years later, in the days when most of
us were collected together in
New York City, my wife was experiencing physical
discomfort. She was
diagnosed as having a cyst "the size of an orange"
on one of her ovaries,
and was scheduled for surgery to remove the cyst.
Interestingly, another
sister who lived in our building and who had
the same first name as my wife
(Gerri Falkinbridge), was also diagnosed with
the very same problem and was
scheduled for the same surgery with the same
surgeon for the same morning.
I was on my way to look for my wife in the post-op
recovery area, when I
found her doctor going out as I was coming in.
He rather nervously informed
me that no surgery had been performed.
When I asked about the cyst, he
said, "The cyst is gone." When I replied, "You
mean it disappeared?" he
answered, "There was no cyst," and he hurried
away. The other Gerri was
also allowed to wake up in the recovery area
with no surgery having been
performed because no cyst could be found, although
one had apparently been
there a few days earlier. This was not
nearly the most dramatic example of
healing that I have ever had occasion to report,
but it is one that involved
me personally. (The most dramatic would probably
either be the case of
George Davis, the guidance counselor from Abington
High School near
Philadelphia who had his pacemaker disappear
from his chest, along with his
heart condition, when Kathryn Kuhlmann touched
him, or the case of David
Pellitier, a little boy who could see through
a plastic eye, and also remove
the plastic eye and see with nothing. I
shook hands with him after a
demonstration and could plainly see the empty
socket in his head, and Jol)n
Griffith took part in setting up the demonstration
by covering his 'good'
eye with a gauze pad and wrapping it around with
medical tape.) The surgeon
in question was not prepared to refer to the
incident as miraculous, but
instead he implied that it was a case of misdiagnosis,
(actually,
double-misdiagnosis, I should emphasize).
But I do know that my wife could
not sit up in bed without pain before she went
in for surgery, and that
afterward, though nothing was done, she was fine!
Some of us will remember the emphasis Stewart
Traill placed on miracles in
the early going, and his claim that he spent
seven years investigating
reports of miraculous healings before he was
ultimately persuaded through
these investigations to become a Christian.
He used to contend that by
applying scientific method to the phenomena,
it is possible to arrive, not
at absolute proof for the validity of the Gospel
claims, but at "a high
degree of probability that a rational person
could not ignore." The argument
is analogous to saying that for lightning to
strike the same place twice is
mathematically unlikely, but that as lightning
continues to strike the same
place repeatedly, a cause and effect relationship
between the phenomenon and
something at ground zero becomes increasingly
reasonable to conclude. That
something at ground zero, in the case of miracles,
is people asking Jesus
for healing. The most important Bible verse
concerning miracles, according
to Stewart's erstwhile presentation of the argument,
is John 15;24 ("If I
had not done among them the works which no one
else did, they would have no
sin; but now they have seen and also hated both
me and my Father."), because
it was crucial to this approach that the Bible
should make exclusive claims
regarding the 'works' of Jesus.
I should hasten to say that I have thought about
these things, and that it
has been my conclusion for many years now that
scientific method does not
lend itself very readily to the study of miracles.
But I would not dismiss
the value of these anecdotes as testimonies,
nor that of any of the personal
things I have mentioned. As far as the
Bible itself is concerned, I am ever
increasingly aware of similar difficulties with
attempts to appeal to
certain things as 'proofs'. For the surface
aspect of the Word, far from
being smooth and flawless, is as scarred and
pock-marked as the surface of
the moon! What I mean to say is that as
far as literal things are
concerned, God has left his Testimony vulnerable.
I will not try to do it now, but it would be
a worthwhile exercise just to
enumerate the various categories of Biblical
pitfalls. The Book of Proverbs
says, "Every word of God proves true." But if
this is intended to refer to
every statement of Scripture as it might be taken
at face value, we are all
in big trouble, brothers and sisters!!
If you do not already know that this
is so, then search the internet (if you dare)
for some of the
Christian-slayers that are out there who have
web-sites devoted to finding
fault with Christian doctrine in general and
the Bible itself in particular.
See how the creators of such publications
as The Skeptical Review and
Biblical Errancy take delight in eating Christian
authors and luminaries for
lunch. A couple of years ago, I was in
a book store and happened upon a
magazine named Skeptic. As I skimmed it,
I noticed an advertisement for a
recently published book which I then found nestled
among the Bibles in the
religion section of the store, entitled, Bible
Prophecy: Failure or
Fulfillment? It is an in-depth and full-length
assault on the Evangelical
belief that Bible prophecy and its fulfillments
are tangible proofs for the
faith. The author focuses his attacks especially
upon two particular works
by Christian apologists, Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia
of Bible Difficulties
and Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
My personal confidence in what I have come to
see and believe is not based
on the value of Scripture as an apologetic tool,
because I am aware that the
Word of God does not cooperate with the superficial
expectations of
believers and skeptics alike! "For God
speaks to man in one way, and in
two, though man does not perceive it." It is
not the "precept upon precept"
and the "line upon line" of the outer shell,
therefore, but rather the
underlying pattern of that living kernel within
that continues to command
my attention and to keep me in awe of what God
has put in place. For there
is a design to the language of Scripture that
transcends the multiplicity of
its human authors and the expanse of generations
over which they were
separated from one another; but this is a subtle
aspect of its physiognomy,
disclosing its beauty through prolonged familiarity.
I am convinced that God is not disturbed when
skeptics imagine they have
prevailed over the credibility of his Word; the
Bible was not written for
them in the first place, at least not directly.
But the Bible is written
for the sake of those who already know and who
therefore should already be
listening. "Whatever the law says, it speaks
to those who are under the
law." Yes, we should do the best we can to answer
the challenges of
unbelievers; but we should also remember that
the Holy Spirit IS the
knowledge of God, and it is He himself who will
give to each and every person
He calls what that individual needs in order
to believe, beginning with the
conviction of sin. After all, what human
being was ever truly dedicated to
following the dictates of reason, anyway?
Yours in Christ,
Rob Machell
Post Script(1/15/2000)-- The text of the preceding
message was written out
longhand over New Year's weekend, but I was still
in the process of typing
it up when I was shown some more recent exchanges
that are a continuation of
what originally prompted me to write. I
feel that it is appropriate for me
to comment in the following way:
I too am the parent of a mentally handicapped
child. My daughter, Jillian,
is now seventeen years old, and in addition to
her moderate retardation has
a number of physical problems. Jillian
is adopted, and was placed with
Gerrie and me when she was six days old, although
the adoption did not
become official until shortly before her first
birthday. We knew by then
that she was developmentally delayed, and we
might have backed out of the
adoption; but this was out of the question for
both of us. When Jillian was
about nine months old, we were sent to DuPont
Institute in Wilmington,
Delaware where a variety of tests were conducted
in an attempt to determine
the specific cause of her problems. A number
of things were ruled out (such
as fetal alcohol syndrome and chromosome abnormality),
but nothing tangible
was found. No medical information could
be obtained from her birth-mother
(whose relatives told the adoption agency that
her whereabouts were
unknown), but many years later we were contacted
by one of those relatives
who eventually informed us that Jillian's birth-mother
had been on drugs
during her pregnancy. Two weeks from now,
Jillian will undergo her fourth
round of major surgery, a "decompression" of
the chiari malformation of her
brain stem, which will hopefully relieve a number
of symptoms, including the
cyst the length of her back which is progressively
hollowing out her spinal
cord from within. (When Jillian was eleven, her
spine began to curve; and it
was discovered that she had four --and now it
is five-- separate but related
conditions.) Jillian was three years old when
Gerrie and I separated. I
have always been thankful that our custody agreement
provides for me to see
Jillian two evenings every week in addition to
every other weekend. Jillian
has an adorable personality and is the personification
of sweetness and
innocence; and although she does have her difficult
moments, she is
generally very pleasant to be with. But
it still does require a great deal
of patience to care for her, and she still cannot
accomplish even the most
basic of life skills without help.
Now I find it remarkable that any parent of any
child under any
circumstances would make the following claim:
"I consider that I have done
all that is humanly possible (and even a bit
more) to give my son every
possible chance to progress." Even discounting
the obvious hyperbole of
claiming to be "more" than perfect, the absolute
nature of such an assertion
raises my suspicion. I know I could never
make such a statement, and it
seems to me that the most dedicated parent is
the one who is painfully aware
of his own shortcomings. I don't mind admitting
that sometimes I feel like
I'm not much more than a glorified baby-sitter;
and although I have found
that it is natural for others, when they see
me with my daughter, to offer
words of praise and encouragement (and I do appreciate
their good will in so
doing), I know within myself that there is plenty
of room for improvement.
(Just for example: it is easier for me at any
given time simply to do those
basic everyday things for her; but for my daughter
to progress to the
greatest possible extent of her own potential,
it is better for her if I
make her do things for herself. But this
requires immeasurably more
patience on my part, and sometimes I take the
shortcuts.) The above quoted
statement, therefore, strikes me as being argumentative
more than honest,
the words of someone who is seeking to "justify
himself rather than God"--
which scripture reference brings us to the Book
of Job.
I wonder if our brother Fred was conscious of
the similarity of his words to
a particular verse in the Bible when he said:
"Don't give me the 'eternal
life'. Just heal my son. Fix his mind so
that he
may lead a normal life. That is ALL I ask.
I would gladly give myself up
for infinite torture just so my son can have
a finite normal life. 'And the
Kid looked down upon the lone Ant making that
plea, laughed, and just made
life harder... "' This metaphor about the kid
and the ant reminds me of Job
9:23-- "If the scourge slays suddenly, He (God)
laughs at the plight of the
innocent." I believe this is one of the most
arresting descriptions
pertaining to God's personal character to be
found in the Bible; and while
it may be tempting for some to dismiss this as
the rantings of Job, we
should remember that God himself, at the end
of the book, confirms the
statements of Job about Him, saying to Eliphaz
the Temanite, "My wrath is
aroused against you and your two friends, for
you have not spoken of Me what
is right, as My servant Job has."
So in what sense does God "laugh" at the plight
of the innocent? In the
sense that he as Creator reserves to himself
the right to do as he sees fit
with his own creation, without regard to the
hopes and sensibilities of
those who exist in the flesh. "The Lord
sits in the heavens, and he does
whatever he pleases;" and this very often means
that he uses certain vessels
as signs and examples for the sake of others.
As Isaiah puts it, "Shall the
clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?"'
And as Paul
elaborates, "Has the potter no right over the
clay, to make out of the same
lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial
use? What if God,
DESIRING TO SHOW (that is, desiring to set an
example and to use as a
sign)..."
While it is true that Job was right in the things
he said about God, this
does not mean that he was right in the totality
of what he was saying. From
the niamnt he began to speak in the presence
of his friends, it was manifest
that his attitude about faith was wrong.
There is nothing in Scripture to
indicate that Job's friends were insincere in
their actions when they sought
to comfort him (sitting on the ground with him
for seven days and seven
nights), nor that it was improper later on that
they sought to reprove him.
But Job correctly perceived early on that they
did not want to believe that
what was happening to him could happen to them
("you see my calamity, and
are afraid), and they sought to 'defend' God
by insisting that Job was
guilty of deliberate sin and was concealing it.
When the young man, Elihu,
spoke up near the end ("I will answer you, and
your friends with you"), he
was just as stringent with Job as the others
had been, except that he
accepted Job's contention that he was not conscious
of anything against
himself. God himself was exacting with
Job at the end, reinforcing the
words of Elihu as the thunder (the 'voice' of
the Lord) confirms the flash
of the lightning (the warning of His messenger).
The inuediate context of Job 9:23 is as follows:
"I am blameless,
yet I do not know myself; I despise my life.
It is all one thing; therefore
I say, 'He destroys the blameless and the wicked.'
If the scourge slays
suddenly, He laughs at the plight of the innocent.
The earth is given into
the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces
of its judges. If it is not
He, who else could it be?" This is Job's response
to what Bildad the Shuhite
had said in the preceding chapter: "Behold, God
will not cast away the
blameless, nor will He uphold the evildoers."
Job was not wrong about God
when he said, "He destroys the blameless and
the wicked." Does it not say
elsewhere in the scriptures, "For Your sake we
are killed all day long; we
are accounted as sheep for the slaughter"?
The problem is with the spirit
in which Job speaks; and when he says, "It is
all one thing," it is the
equivalent of saying, 'It makes no difference
(whether one chooses
righteousness or wickedness),' and it is for
this attitude that Job was
rebuked unsparingly by Elihu, who did so for
Job's good. Elihu said: "What
man is like Job, who drinks up scoffing like
water, who goes in company with
evildoers (though not literally), and walks with
wicked men? For he has
said, 'It profits a man nothing that he should
take delight in God."' These
exact words are not to be found in the recorded
speeches of Job; but they
represent the essence of things that he did say,
one of the salient
instances being the phrase already cited, "It
is all one thing." Elihu also
said: "Do you think this to be just? Do
you say, 'It is my right before
God,' that you ask, 'What advantage have I? How
am I better off than if I
had sinned?"' And again Elihu said: "Men of understanding
will say to me,
and the wise man who hears me will say: 'Job
speaks without knowledge, his
words are without insight.' Would that Job were
tried to the end, because he
answers like wicked men. For he adds rebellion
to his sin; he claps his
hands among us, and multiplies his words against
God."
By contrast to all of this, there are some who
wish to believe that it
pleases God and that it does Fred a service when
they pander to his scornful
attitude. It sets my teeth on edge when
I read such words as the following:
"Yes, Fred, I think you're mad at God-- and you
have reason to be. Go
ahead." Poor old Job! What was God thinking?
Moreover, for the sake of
comparison, it should be observed that nowhere
in his words is Job to be
found cheering on perversion! As for me,
I would prefer to imitate Elihu
who said: "The godless in heart cherish anger;
they do not cry for help when
he binds them." And on the hopeful side: "He
delivers the afflicted by their
affliction, and opens their ear by adversity."
And I would say, Fred, that
having once committed your life to the Lord,
you can expect him to take the
initiative in dealing with you, since he chastises
every son whom he
receives. You will not be treated merely
as an outsider, regardless of
whether or not you remain committed to him.
The End
===============================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
Brother Rob,
Awesome testimony of an Awesome God's providence in your life. Good
to hear
from you brother.May the Lord continue to watch over you and may you
continue to grow in His grace.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve Saxton
=======================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Roy Clemmons wrote:
> >If I were God. Hmmm.... good question. Thanks,
Steve! Let's see...
>
> >Firstly, there would be no natural disasters.
No earthquakes, no
> >hurricanes, no tornadoes.
>
> Fred - I loved your answer to this question.
>
> Actually, I re-read it and re-checked the author
because
> because I just couldn't believe it was you
who wrote
> it.
Believe it. Well, I hate pain and suffering, and if there were a way
I
could end this for everybody, I would.
> What you described is just what God has planned
for us.
> Your scenario is a picture of "paradise" -
of what it
> will be like to live with God. Not only that,
but
> it USED to be like this for us. Originally,
in the
> beginning, mankind had this type of relationship
> with God and God and Man literally walked together
> through the Garden of Eden; just as you described.
> But, we rejected our loving God and despite
his attempts
> to reconcile with us, we continued to do so.
As the legend goes. It would appear that many religions have this idea
of an earlier "paradise", that somehow we've fallen away from. Paradise
lost.
I'm not sure why such legends arise. I will have to give this some
thought and perhaps some research.
From an evolutionary standpoint (one I know you have trouble with),
our
earlier forms did have it good -- swinging from trees laden with fruit,
life was very good. Then something happened. Some sort of caprice of
the environment, a separation, that caused some to be isolated from
"easy living". Therein began the evolution of what was eventually to
become man. We were forced out of the trees by nature so that we could
evolve and become smarter. But in so doing we lost that carefree
paradise we once had. I find this an interesting parallel to the many
legends. Does it mean anything? I doubt it. But I can't help from
wondering.
> Imagine your children rejecting you!
Happens all the time. But I know how to deal with that. I actually
expect my children to be independent-minded, and I do allow some level
of "rejection" to take place. I think it is more important for them
to
learn to think for themselves rather than to please me at the drop
of
every hand and foot. So far, I've had good results. My oldest daughter
-now 7- has a very strong interest in math and science, which
I
consider a milestone of an achievement, considering how women usually
choose not to be interested in these subjects.
But I think you are referring to a deeper level of rejection. A
rejection that only matters to authoritarian modes of governance, which
I don't like in the first place.
> The Fall of Man can also be described as the
Fall from
> Perfection (expect to see a more detailed paper
on this,
> soon). We chose to act in ways contrary from
God's perfect
> nature.
Are we to be slaves to "God's" will, or follow our own? If we are to
be
slaves, what's the point of existence? I am a strong "believer" in
self-determination and self-responsibility.
My daughter and I built a robot arm last night. Now, the robot does
the
will of my daughter; she is, in some sense, "God" of that robot. It's
purpose is to do my daughter's bidding. (The real purpose is so that
she learns something about electrical and mechanical control systems,
but we'll ignore that for the moment). If the robot were sentient,
would it be "right" to limit the robot's mode of existence to just
serving my daughter's wishes?
> See, we had all that you described and we chose
to
> walk away from it. But, we all have the opportunity
> to return to this state and to this kind of
relation-
> ship with God.
Or we can return to that state for ourselves and be at peace.
> Essentially, you said that you would have an
intimate
> relationship with your children ( something
that you
> strive for now). But, what if your children
reject
> that intimate relationship? What if they indulge
> in everything that is contrary to your nature?
Like what? My nature encompasses a lot. Actually, in a sense, my son
is
like this -- but he is autistic, and so is not at "fault". As for my
daughters, my main wish for them is to be successful in life, and I
think I am preparing them for that. I suppose they could choose to
not
be successful; to throw their lives away to drugs and the like. But
if
that were to happen, I would be to blame. I would've had to allow
something to exist in their environment to lead to such destructive
behavior. I hold myself solely responsible for the physical and
psychological well being of my kids.
> I can tell you from experience and observation,
> your relationship will crumble. Sure, you will
> still love them - how can a parent ever cease
> to love their child? But you will not have
a
> relationship with them because they reject
you.
I think you are taking a sharp view on what normally happens when
children grow older and "find themselves". I have thought about this
already. I expect them to establish their own identity and not listen
to dear old dad so much. But consider that I have spent time WHILE
THEY'RE YOUNG giving them the tools to be able to take on this level
of
independence. I don't see it as a rejection, per se, but a simple
"coming of age".
> And what can you do about it? Even if you had
> the power to make them love you, you wouldn't
> do it, because you would recognize that love
and
> an intimate relationship requires fee will.
You
> want them to choose to have a relationship
with
> you. Am I right? There is no trust when it
is enforced.
I don't understand why they would not want to have a relationship with
me, unless I've mistreated them in someway. My wife continues to have
a
relationship with her parents, despite being somewhat mistreated by
them during her childhood. Since I am obviously not mistreating my
daughters, I don't anticipate any problems.
> As far as punishment goes. Think of it as payment.
> Here's 2 examples:
>
> 1. You and your wife go out for the evening
and
> return home to discover that a lamp is broken.
> One of your children admits to breaking it
while
> playing catch with a baseball in the house.
You
> and your wife have strict rules about throwing
baseballs
> in the house. Your choices are broad here,
but let's
> say that you impose some kind of consequence
for
> the child's disobedience. Your point is to
teach the
> child that throwing baseballs in the house
is not
> acceptable. In any case, you pick up your child,
> hug him or her, and explain that it is just
a lamp.
> What's more important is that the child understands
> that his/her behavior must not be repeated.
> But who pays for the lamp? The broken lamp
must still
> be accounted for and replaced. Continuing,
say that your child
> continues to throw baseballs in the house or
play with
> knifes and/or matches despite your instructions
not to
> do so. What if you see them running through
the house with
> scissors? What if this child becomes a teenager
and turns
> to drugs and alcohol? What if this child breaks
social
> laws and winds up in prison? These are things
a parent
> fears. So what do we do? We don't let them
mature without
> guidance. We impose rules that have consequences
when
> they are broken. We teach them how to treat
others.
> In all of this, we teach them how to love by
our example.
Some of what you describe here reminds me of my own childhood! I did
set fire to the kitchen once, when I was 5 or 6 or so!
I do have rules in place for my kids, and the punishment is usually
something like a docked allowance or the like. But I don't have any
serious need to have to discipline my kids that often, with the
exception of my son -- but he's autistic, and is in a world far
removed. I have to deal with him differently than I do with the other
kids.
As far as parental fears, I have no such fears for my daughters,
because I am reasonably confident that I have done the right things
with regards to their school, neighborhood, and other environmental
factors that can effect child development. I do have a very deep
relationship with my oldest daughter, and one is in formation with
my
youngest daughter (not even 2 yet). I just don't see the problems you
speak of happening with my kids. If such problems of that nature were
to happen, I would be to blame -- it would mean I've failed somewhere
in providing the nurturing environment and guidance for my kids.
And I don't believe in failure.
In fact, I have a "rule" -- lead, not push, draw, not pull. It is no
mistake that my daughter loves science and math so much -- I have
provided these things in her environment, from the time she was very
young. I am deliberately steering her in that direction, because I
think it will be the key to her life and happiness in the 21st century.
But it is a gentle lead, never a push, never forced. And so far, it
has
worked splendidly.
> 2. A judge's son commits a crime - say speeding.
The
> court waits and wonders what the judge will
do. Will the
> judge impose a penalty on his child and uphold
the law
> or will he free his son from the consequence
because of
> his love for his son?
Actually, he should disqualify himself for reasons of conflict of
interest.
> When the judge renders the verdict,
> here is what he does. He sentences his son
to the maximum
> fine and pounds his gavel. Thus, justice is
served. Then,
> he rises up from the bench, removes his robe,
steps
> down to the floor and walks over and hugs his
son. Then
> he pays the fine, himself, thus demonstrating
his love
> for his son. So, in this way, the judge upholds
the law
> and maintains his integrity and demonstrates
his love
> for his son and maintains the relationship.
Hmmm.... Not my approach, but I suppose that can work.
> God loves us and is trying to teach us so that
we will
> not repeat the behavior that lead to our rebellion
in
> the first place. But not only that. He went
one step
> further. Through Jesus Christ, God's justice
is served
> and our relationship with God is restored.
The lamp
> is paid for and the penalty for our crime,
our
> rebelliousness is atoned for. If we want a
relationship
> with God, all we have to do is accept it. But
if
> we continue to reject it, God won't make us
love
> him - he realizes, as we do, that a relationship
> requires a trust that can only be obtained
> through choice.
I have one problem with your analogies. In the cases you give above,
the parents are there IN PERSON with their children. The children can
see and touch and dialog with their parents on a daily basis.
Obviously, this is not how your God treats us. If I were God, I would
be making frequent personal appearances with my "children" so there
would be no doubt about my existence. I would consider a lack of
personal appearance a dereliction of duty on my behalf. If I were off
somewhere to a foreign country to live, living my kids behind, I would
not be able to assure that my kids would grow up in a well-adjusted
manner. My personal, physical presence is required for that. Your God,
if he exists, could do the same, and that would solve a lot of problems
(and shut me up! :-)
> Fred, everything that you described has already
been
> written about in the New Testament. The paradise
you
> describe is what awaits all who accept God's
gift of
> restoration.
But I have already restored myself, and I provide this environment for
my own children. Tears actually came to my eyes when I wrote that after
I realized what I was really saying.
> "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death,
is
> your sting?" 1 Corinthians 15:55
I don't really care about death anymore. I mean, I would not want to
exist forever. Several lifetimes, perhaps, but after a fashion boredom
would set in. I'd much rather see all the pain and suffering in the
world come to an end than for me to "live forever." Keep the eternal
life. Fix my son's brain so that he may lead a normal life. End
suffering of children and others all over the world. A finite life
of
peace is all I want for myself and everyone else. If you really spend
some time thinking about it, you would not want an infinite lifespan,
either.
> I hope that your children never rebel in a manner
> that destroys your relationship with them.
I do not plan to fail in this fashion.
> So many children, today, reject their parents
because they
> never received appropriate guidance and nurturing
> from their parents.
If anything, I probably spend too much time nurturing my kids.
Sometimes I have to take back time for myself. And this is especially
the case with my new occupation.
> Teach them now while you can
> for there will come a day when they bear the
> fruit of the seeds you are planting now.
I have been doing this since they took their first breath on Terra
Firma.
> Roy
>
> If I were God, I would have lost patience with
mankind
> long ago and simply destroyed us forever. But
then
> conversations like this wouldn't occur and
people
> wouldn't be here to debate my existence.
I know that feeling. I've had it often myself. But I consider that many
of the problems that exist today does so because of a lack of real
hope
and self-esteem. If I were made a God today I would immediately begin
the long, slow, and hard process of fixing the problems with humankind.
I would do all that I have stated and then some.
-Fred
==========================================================
From: Nkcsigner2@aol.com
Dear Fred and anyone else interested - a good place to research the
"mythology" of how other cultures have similar stories to those found
in the
Judeo-Christian views is a book called "Eternity In Their Hearts" by
Don
Richardson, the same guy who wrote "Peace Child." He looks at
those legends
as a part of pre-venient grace within a culture by which to build a
bridge to
the gospel. Although I know you may not agree with the conclusions,
Fred, I
know you will respect the guy's research as he has traveled the globe
and
gone to places that Euro-Americans never have been before, and gathered
a lot
of information in the oral tradition of tribal peoples. Jim and
I had the
privilege of meeting him when we were in Bible College years ago.
He was a
very practical and loving person, able to cut through religiosity in
an
amazing way.
Nancy C.
=====================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
There's a point in here I wish to address, because of it's intellectual worth.
Nkcsigner2@aol.com wrote:
> ...
> Nothing has value unless it is connected to
a fixed standard. You see that
> with art. What is just a few swirls of
paint on some stretched cloth derives
> the worth of millions of dollars by the value
that people place on it.
I have to disagree with that. Nothing is "fixed", per se, except the
speed of
light in a vacuum, and even at the quantum level that varies a bit.
The "value" a thing has is the value we humans choose to assign to it.
There is
nothing especially 'fixed" with regards to art! Art has only the value
that
someone with the money is willing to pay for it. Sometimes it's based
on
uniqueness, and sometimes it's based on the notoriety of the artist.
Usually
it's a combination of the two. What I see and feel when, say, I look
at a fine work
of art -- like the La Jocounde at the Louvre, for example -- will be
totally
different from what you experience.Even mathematics, which I once held
to be absolute, is less so these days.
> God places a high value on us.
Or, more importantly, we imagine that God places a high value on us
in an
attempt to bolster our sagging self-esteems.
> He allows us, by His Holy Spirit, to have
> spiritual communion with Him, to have a right
view of our own worth.
Again, this is a very nice view to take if your self-esteem needs a boost.
> If you
> remove God from the equation of the Universe,
you have no absolute, no fixed
> point whereby to start, by which to measure
the true worth of life.
I strongly disagree here. I, an atheist, value life quite a bit. In
fact, I
value the Quality of Life even more than the life itself. To live in
pain, to suffer,
to me, is the equivalent of what you call "hell", and in some extreme
cases
death may be preferred. Of course, such is solely the decision and
discretion of the
individual suffering the pain and hardship. I do not need a god to
have value. I
create that value myself.
> Then it just becomes that arbitrary view of
the common, and we are all in big
> trouble!
Yes, there is an arbitrary component to it, but why does that mean "we're
in big
trouble?"
> I agree from the Scriptures that the "teaching
of kindness" (see
> Prov. 31) is a primary "function" of women
in particular.
Why "in particular?" Surely, kindness is something we all should strive
for, men
and women, no? Wouldn't you want your husband to be kind and sensitive
to your
needs? Or would you want to be ignored while he guzzles beer watching
Monday
Night Football? :-) :-) :-)
> This does not mean
> it is so effeminate that you dear Viking brothers
cannot be kinder; it is
> clearly what God wants you to learn more about
- that is all over His word.
> I believe, in our modern culture, you can say
of the Christian faith that it
> "is sexist." There are assigned values
to the functions of each of the two
> genders, as I said "vive la difference!" (Sorry,
the Christian faith is also
> exclusive, we are doomed to be the greatest
of offenders: politically
> incorrect).
Are these "assigned gender roles" completely immutable? What is wrong
with the
man being "househusband" while the woman works? I spend a lot of time
with my
kids and enjoy it. Nurturing is NOT the sole provenance of women!
Now, one of the problems I see with fundamental Christianity is it's
inflexibility to adapt to today's world and needs. But ultimately the
choice
resides with you.
> Does this mean either is of less value, either
to God to to each
> other? To say so is to invite the modern
culture to continue assigning the
> devaluation of either, which can turn into
an environment in which
> homosexuality flourishes, which is destructive
to our whole society.
Please illustrate for me how homosexuality is "destructive to our whole
society." Who, pray tell, is hurt by it? What is wrong with living
your life as you see
fit, and allowing others to live their lives as THEY see fit?
If anything, adultery can and does affect society in very concrete ways.
It
hurts the other spouse and the kids when the practice is uncovered.
It leads to
divorce and the whole onslaught of acrimony surrounding it. And is
far more prevalent
than homosexuality. Yet no one seems concerned with adultery's impact
on
society.Hmmm. What is wrong with this picture?
I see a ugliness here. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany. Find
a minority
among you blame all the world's problems on them. My, oh my how we
never learn.
> Tell me that the homosexual ideal society would
be a healthy one for those of
> us who are straight?
Both cultures can and do commingle quite well! All the time!
And besides, let's talk about adultery and how that's healthy for society!
> I shudder to think. I have seen their publications!
What publications? You can't base everything on a publication!!! If
that were
the case, then I could say all Christianity should be banned just on
the basis of a
few publications of hate groups that have Christianity at their core.
> When it comes to the term "acceptance"
I do believe we need to accept that the flesh
> and blood person in front of us, whatever his
or her difficulties or choices
> have led to, is still one for whom Christ died.
In this, we are COMMANDED to
> love, not the sin, not the twisted ideology,
but the sinner.
Interesting choice of words. There is nothing ideological about what
many gays
and lesbians go through in their daily lives. And many did not have
a choice in
the matter, no more than you had a choice to be heterosexual.
In fact, the only time a choice is required is when you are forced or
compelled
to do something DIFFERENT from your inner nature.
> ... I am just saying that when you
> work with a gay person, or have someone in
your family that is such, or do
> business with someone, you can love them without
supporting their wrong
> choice in this matter.
Like I said, many do not have a choice.
> Their homosexuality is just one part of
them, akin to
> other people you know that make other relationship
mistakes. It is not
> something they can't be healed from,
They aren't sick, so no healing is necessary. It is just their inner
nature,
period.
And I'll skip the amateur psychology about "father issues" with gays.
Gee,
someone else on another group claimed that atheism is a "father issue".
What's
going on here? This is more victimization garbage. Blame the fathers.
Yeah.
You know, I wish I were gay. Then I could REALLY feel the heat of your
scorn!
Literally roasted over an open pit of fire! Snap, crackle, pop. Music
to your
ears! Egad.
Another note: Most who "convert" to atheism from Christianity are usually
rather
quiet about it, for all the reasons you can easily guess. Those who
convert from
atheism to Christianity are noticed and cherished by Christians, who
see it as
yet another affirmation point to their faith. You hear about it up
and down the
aisles.
I suppose I am an "abomination" to some of you. One of you even told
me, in so
many words, that I'm "going to hell" as an atheist. Well, since I don't
believe
in hell, I don't care, but it does scare me a bit that such thoughts
must be at
the back of your minds.
And so, when you interact with gays, what is going on at the back of
your minds?
It only scares me to think. And how disingenuous to be thinking such
thoughts
while putting on the facade of "friendship". Then you must constantly
"remind"
each other that you "must love the sinner" even though you must "hate
the sin!"
What a dichotomy!
Kinda reminds me of what goes on in the heads of some people who hate
my dermal
chromatics, yet must "act polite" because of fear of reprisals, etc.
They put up
a facade, but you know what? I pick that up right away. I am not fooled.
And so it goes when you "must interact" with a gay or lesbian. They
pick up your
resentment, but say nothing about it. But what does that make you look
like?
Well, I don't know. Ask them.
-Fred
Just can't keep my mouth shut, can I?
====================================================
> From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
>
>
> > >Fred said:
. What I really meant is that ALL of us show
more loving and caring for
> our own children than the supposed "God" shows
for his own "children."
> Steve replied:What could be more loving than eternal life with a
perfect
body, no sorrow, pain or death, and freedom from sin evermore? Besides
having God Himself live with us-God Himself, Fred!
> > > Fred said:
> I keep and protect my kids from harm
WITHOUT manipulating and pulling their strings.
Cannot "God" do the same? How about natural disasters
and diseases that we have
little or no control over? Why would a "loving
God" allow children to be crushed
to death in earthquakes?
> Steve said:Are you saying that God does manipulate and pull our strings?
As for natural disaster and diseases. Life is hard indeed and not fair.
It
was never meant to be fair. Death comes to everyone as you well know.
Everyone gets sick in this life. God does promise great rewards in
Heaven at
the end of our sojourn here on earth. I have found from personal experience
that it is the hard times in my life that have made the greatest changes
in
my life-positive changes. These have equipped me, fortified by God's
grace
to be able to relate and help others who have come across my path.
By being
able to empathize with them etc.
> > > Fred said:
> Secondly, I would speak and appear directly
to those who worshipped me, so
that there would be no question about my intentions
and agenda.
> Steve replied: To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear God
does
exactly that.
> Fred said:
Thirdly, I would not want my "children" to worship
me, per se, but to be in
awe of the universe and the world around them
(I suppose I'm a modest God. :-)
> Steve replied: Why would you want to do away with something as incredibly
intimate as worshipping God? His universe and the stars and world do
put me
in awe. Is it wrong to be in awe of the creator of those things as
well?
Fred said:
> Fourthy, I would teach them to think for themselves.
To be able to
discover the truth, how to recognize it and understand
it.
> Steve replied:Where do get the idea that God keeps His children from
doing
that? Jesus promises and delivers that we "will know the truth" and
that
truth will set us free.
Fred said:
> Fifthly, there would be no such thing as death.
Steve replied:God promises that very thing Fred. Death will have no
more
sting, and death will be done away with in Heaven.
Fred said:
> I would walk through the garden with my children.
I would teach them many
> wondrous things, tell them many tales of old.
I would eat and drink with
my children, and gently guide them to maturity.
I would tenderly hold my
children in my arms if they ever felt down, to
let them know everything will be all
> right, because I, their God, would make it
so. I would whisper sweet
dreams in their ears at night, and fill their
hearts with gladness during the day.
All this and much more, oh my children.
> Steve replied:I confess Fred that there have been times in my walk
with
God that I have felt all those beautiful longings you describe so tenderly.
There have been times when God has made me feel like he was holding
me
tenderly and caring for me just as you describe.
Fred said:
> You know, this is bringing tears of joy to
my eyes, as I realize that this
is the way I am with my own children. But I won't
be saying much about my
children anymore for a while, since certain elements
here have taken it upon
themselves to verbally drag them through the
mud. :-( :-( :-(
> Steve replied:May God give you grace to one day be able to
forgive Neil
for all the hurtful things he has said to you.
Fred said:
> Anyway, I throw the question back at you and
all. What would each and
every one of you do if you were God? Now be honest!
And I promise you -- the "Man
> Upstairs" won't strike you dead if He doesn't
like your answer! :-)
> Steve replied. Lucifer wanted to be like God. I believe my wisdom
is to
learn from his example.
> Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
>
>==============================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
Fred said:"It is regrettable that the Bible was
not as effective at stopping
some of history's greatest atrocities, such as
the Spanish Inquisition, for
instance, as it was in propagating itself. And
don't even get me started about the
horrors that took place in the Dark Ages..."
Steve replied:Are you saying that science has never been misused to
kill or
injure millions of people through out history? Should we do away with
science because of this? You can do better than argue from that angle
Fred.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
====================================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
Fred said:"No one is pure. And you have to admit
that Christianity is high
on the list of WORST OFFENDERS. Islam is also
high on that list -- I am well aware of
that.Actually, I not sure of the two which is
the worst."
Steve replied: Actually Fred, they don't even come close to the murderous
devastation that communism has brought to the world stage. This has
been
documented.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
==========================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
Fred,
Steve said:
> But none of their holy men died on the cross for the sins of the
whole
world like Jesus Christ.
Fred said:
You just don't get it, do you? Each religion
has something unique about
it --uniqueness does not a truth make. And "sin"
is decidedly a Christian
concept, anyway.
Steve replied:
Not so fast my friend. You are going to try to put Jesus' death on
the cross
on a par with anything that all of the other religions have to offer?
Fred,
give me just one example from any of the other major or minor religions
that
had anyone coming close to being crucified as an atonement for the
sins of
billions who hadn't even been born yet, not to mention those who spit
on
Him, pulled out His beard, gambled for His clothes, and scourged His
back
till His flesh literally hung in ribbons. Besides beating His face
so badly
that He could hardly be recognized as a human being. And then saying
"Father
forgive them, for they know not what they do".As for sin, it has been
around since Adam.
Forgiveness of sin because of a Savior is a decidedly Christian concept.
Fred said:"I know what you are trying to do,
Steve, and I appreciate the
effort. But it is no more possible for me to
"come to Christ", as you put it, than it is for
you to believe in Santa Claus. In some
real sense, I have slipped outside of
> Humanity and see Humanity for what it really
is. Just like you have
slipped outside of Childhood and see Childhood
for what it really is. Just as you
cannot go back to believing in Santa Claus,
I cannot go back to believing in your
> Christ."
Steve replied:With man it is impossible, but with God all things are
possible.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
====================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Hey, Steve and Fred,
I like this conversation you two have going. Fred, I admire your love
for
your children and the way you expressed it. And Steve, I think you're
right on the mark with your responses.
I would like to add to what Steve said about suffering and the problem
of
evil. This is probably the toughest question for any Christian to answer,
and I don't pretend to know all the answers or to be able to "defend"
God
here. Instead, I simply want to add a thought from my experiences and
observations.
I grew up and still live in New York City and I know that it is next
to
impossible for even the best of parents here to protect their children
from every possible harm. Even though most people would say that I
was a
"good kid," I got into several fights during my childhood and teenage
years and got hurt a little bit, though never seriously, thank God.
And
although I don't advocate fighting except in self-defense, and only
as a
last resort, I do look back and realize how being allowed by God to
go
through those experiences made me tougher.
The point is that God allows us to go through unpleasant experiences
in
life in order to forge character in us. Looking back, I would not want
to
have been protected from people who started fights with me because
I
would not have developed any toughness by hiding behind my mother's
apron. God is not unloving when He allows us to go through the fire
of
trials -- it's actually the other way around. I believe one of the
reasons He does it is in order to prepare us for the tougher times
ahead.
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
=====================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
This is what remains of my reply. I wrote more, but unfortunately, the
e-mail program crashed before I had a chance to save it.
======================================================================
Robert San Pascual wrote:
Fred:
Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you
sense or measure
the
presence of your God in an objective manner?
Bob:
Fair enough. I'll answer your question as honestly as
I can, and afterwards I have a question for you that I'd like
you
to answer as honestly as you can.
I sense the
presence of God by answered
prayers, a fulfilled and joyful life (I'm not claiming "happiness"
as the world
defines it, but what the Bible calls joy), peace, assurance
of eternal life,
hope, meaning and purpose, and significance. I'm sure you'll
chalk all
of this up to psychological phenomena, but as I said,
this is honest, from the heart.
Is it objective? No. Is it real? It's as real as anything in
life.
The experience your mind creates from all of this
for you is real --
that's about all we can be sure of, right?
Okay, now it's
your turn. You made the claim
that "there is no way to sense or determine their [God's]
presence." Prove this
statement -- and no diversion tactics either.
We have instruments that can sense individual
quanta in magnetic
fields, electromagnetic radiation, and electric
charges. For a god to
exist of the nature you suppose, that "supernatural"
force would have
to interact with ordinary matter. That supernatural
force would have
to interact with your brain, causing changes
in firing patterns of your
neurons, right? Otherwise, what would be the
point?
If such a supernatural realm were to exist, one
would suppose there
would be all kinds of stray interactions that
would be very easy to
detect. Especially at energy levels high enough
to alter neural activity,
which is fairly high, considering.
Thus, we SHOULD be able to detect these anomalies
with our most
sensitive instruments. So far as I know, no such
reliable and
repeatable detection has been made.
Also, there is no firm basis to suppose that
such supernatural forces
should ONLY interact with the brain and not the
surroundings.
Also, considering that there are 6 billion brains
on this planet, that's a
lot of energy we're talking about here. Such
energy levels cannot go
undetected forever. Some anomalies should show
up in experiments
SOMEWHERE.
So, this is to say that we have not detected
any manifestations of
"supernatural" forces.
As far as "proving", you have to understand the
nature of proof. I can
say to you, "prove to me that the moon is NOT
made of green cheese."
Would you be able to do it? No. Would that mean
you would have to
consider green cheese a serious possibility?
While you cannot
directly "prove" that the moon is NOT made of
"green cheese", you
can say that it is highly unlikely. Infinitesimal.
You would also apply
our current understanding of the formation of
the solar system to cast
serious doubt on the "green cheese" conjecture.
You can also look at
the nature of green cheese and how it is made,
etc. How may cows
would you need to produce a chunk of green cheese
the size of the
moon? How would such a thing be constructed?
Etc.
Now, lets look at what it would take to have
a "god" that exists
outside of our universe AND be "all-knowing"
and "all-powerful".
ALL-KNOWING GOD:
What is meant by "all-knowing"? That this god-being
knows
everything? Everything in the universe? Down
to the position and
momentum of every particle?
Assuming such a being had a way to get around
the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, how big would that being's
brain have to be to
be all-knowing? I think we can safely assume,
due to the storage
requirement and complexity, that the size must
be AT LEAST the size
of the known universe.
If we allow for compressibility of information
(i.e. no need to know
the EXACT position of each and every particle,
but a reasonable
statistical approximation) then perhaps we may
reduce the size
requirements of the brain somewhat -- say the
size of several
galaxies.
Clearly, such a brain would have to exist outside
of the realm of
known physics -- our physical laws dictates that
a structure that size
would collapse in on itself to become several
rather large black
holes. Oops.
So, lets say that this god-being exist in a different
universe that would
allow for a brain of such size and magnitude.
Ok. Now we have a
whole new universe whose physics differs from
ours. This introduces
a new level of complexity, one much greater than
the current universe
we now know. The same "questions of origin",
etc. that arise with our
universe must now be applied to this one. So,
we're back where we
started from.
ALL-POWERFUL GOD:
What is meant by "all-powerful"? The power to
do absolutely
anything? That is, the power to manipulate and
control matter and
energy in our universe to any desired extent?
-Fred
=====================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Hi, Fred,
You wrote, "The experience your mind creates from all of this for you
is
real -- that's about all we can be sure of, right?" I previously gave
you
several objective evidences from archaeology, history, etc. What I
gave
you in the last post was subjective evidences to supplement the objective
ones. I hope you'll take both types into account as you examine the
historicity of Jesus and the evidences for His resurrection.
An illustration: If you
were to sit in a jury in a trial in which a man
was accused of murder, you wouldn't limit yourself to just the
"scientific" evidences in your decisionmaking process. You would also,
in
addition -- not in place of -- listen to "subjective" testimonies and
other types of evidences. If there were little or no scientific evidences
(and I'm just saying this for argument's sake, so there's no need to
argue whether or not there is always scientific evidence in any given
situation) you would have to rely on other types of evidences to make
a
determination.
God in His sovereignty chose
to leave us whatever evidences we have; He
didn't give you what you wanted. You can use that as an excuse to not
believe in Him and show yourself to be a dishonest cynic or you can
take
what's there and examine it honestly and prove yourself to be an honest
skeptic.
On my asking you to prove
your statement, "there is no way to sense or
determine their [God's] presence," I appreciate your long reply below.
But as I said in another post, I think you overstated your claim, so
why
not just humbly restate and modify it? Remember that if there is a
God,
He can make Himself "untraceable" to scientific instruments. He doesn't
live in a parallel universe; instead, the Bible talks about a different
realm: the spiritual realm as opposed to the material one in which
we
live. But God did enter the material realm two millennia ago in the
person of Jesus so that people could and did touch Him and hear Him
audibly and see His power. We have several eyewitness testimonies to
this
effect in historically reliable documents.
About what you said regarding
"proofs," I think we're on the same page
about this. Consider the probability of Jesus' resurrection. Of course
there will still remain some doubts, so that a measure of faith is
needed
-- that's just the way God designed it. There's never enough evidence
for
a dishonest cynic, but just enough for an honest skeptic.
On your comments about God
being all-knowing and the size His brain
would have to be: You're trying to draw a picture of God within your
belief system, as though He has to be material. On the contrary, God
is
spirit. Step outside of the box you've made for yourself in which you
process ideas and theories through a certain filter. At the very least,
examine the issue of God the way philosophers and theologians (not
necessarily Christian) do -- they certainly don't confine God to the
material realm. You do have respect for intelligent people and their
ideas in the fields of philosophy, theology, archaeology, history,
and
others, don't you?
Finally, I'm sorry to hear
that you won't be corresponding with us for a
little while. I understand that you need to take some time off from
all
of this. Before you go, I do hope you realize that not every Christian
is
a fundamentalist and not every religion is a cult. More importantly,
I
pray that you come to know God as your loving Father and Jesus as your
Savior, brother, and best friend.
Bob San Pascual
==========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
<<You have rushed in with your favorite
god; you are
totally ignoring what I said: That there's
an infinite
number of possibilities.>>
There may
be an infinite number of
possibilities,
but there is only one
reality.
If there is no God, about 95% of
the world's
population throughout history has
been defining
it's existence on the
non-reality
of spiritual identity. If there
is a God,
only one explanation is accurate,
only one
answer is
correct. There cannot be as many
valid explanations
of the true nature of God
as there
are people who care to propose a
theory.
If you really want to know,
sincerely,
then there is only One who can
answer you,
only One you should reasonably
ask.
The proof is in the answer, if you are
willing
to listen.
In
Christ, Amy
"Proof" should not depend on my "willingness to listen", whatever
that means. A proofs must stand on its own, irrespective of what any
one individual wants to believe.
What you are really asking me is to return to that state of delusion
it
took me 4 years to undo. "Willingness to listen" directly translates
into willingness to allow myself to be led by delusion. I have taken
great pains to ensure that I am never led by delusion ever again.
And like I said in so many words before, the "one you choose to
'listen' to" is determined by personal preference and acculturation.
If
you were raised a Jew, Judaism would most likely be your choice. If
you were raised a Hindu, Hinduism would most likely be your choice.
To these people, their choices seem just as "obvious" and
"self-assured" as yours is. And only religious bigotry would suggest
otherwise.
I have worked with and spoken with Indians, Jews, etc. on this matter.
You cannot invalidate their faith anymore than they can invalidate
yours. They are just as convinced that their way is right as you are
about your way. They have there set of cannons just like you have
yours. It's all personal preference and acculturation. The more
Christians come to this realization, the better off our world will
be. I
really don't see what is so difficult with this concept. My 7-year-old
daughter understands this!
Sigh....
-Fred
Back to my break....
======================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
Brother Allen,
If you already received this email, please forgive me. I'm cleaning
up my email
folders so I may do a complete c drive reboot. God bless you bro.
Regarding your comment:"Most of the people you are arguing with have
neither
your intelligence or quickness of wit. (That's intended as an insult
to none
by-the-way)"
"Put up your dukes, put up your dukes!"(Cowardly Lion in The Wizard
of Oz)
Seriously, I resemble that remark though I prefer to be called ignorant
rather than
slow of wit or intelligence. But seeing you are a new kid on the block
and your
brother-in-law(whom I like a bit)invited you to join this gabfest,
I will spare your
toes when I meet you in person.
Really seriously, I have been enlightened by the things I do understand
from your
replies to our friend Fred. May God continue to give you wisdom in
these
matters.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve Saxton
==============================================