VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Sight & Sound
This forum is school related so please no cursing.This forum is here to let us talk to those we can't reach normally along with other event information.
R1 -- stored, 11:42:12 04/28/02 Sun

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Sunny
In Response To Pig cleaner
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:21

You got THAT from that?! (your second statement from your first) HOW? LOL...doesn't
compute. Just cuz someone says they are happy for those that were ready to go to heaven, that
were killed in 9-11 doesn't mean they were glad it happened, or that we should cheer on folks
that kill christians. Was there more to what you read, that you didn't cut & paste? Must have
been, or you need to rethink in a mighty way.

Pig Cleaner
In Response To Connie
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:19

He is able to view all of history and each person's life and choices and see what they
choose. What don't you understand about that statement? Can't be any clearer unless you
have a mind that's completely closed.

That life does not exist until it is created, and it cannot be created until She makes the decisions.
This standing outside of time business is a wonderful idear, until one reads a few science fiction
novels and starts understanding what these biblical teachrs are saying.

Better than they do.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:18

Goodnight huggz, be blessed.

Sunny
In Response To dori~
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:18

Hey there! yeah amazingly I am here two nights in a row. (G) Not for long, but nice to stop in. I
dunno exactly what the reason for Murray being so confident Praggie ain't a christian, but I do
know how mistaken M. probably is about this person. Those that practice righteousness ARE
rightous, yet narrow the way & FEW find it. Those that think they will & mormons won't might
not even get there to SEE that some mormons made it. (G) Tons of churches today cuz the
Great Apostasy is huge. What is it? MODERN RELIGION! However, a few pure souls can be
found within its churches, ALL of them. THESE pure souls will see God.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:16

Good night also to you.

Sunny
In Response To Yes it was a good call, thanks
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:14

.

Sunny
In Response To LOL another danged typo (G)
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:13

Freudian slip? I added the word "not" in the operative phrase. sorry (g)

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:13

"This scripture refers to such as the CEO of a great company, etc, of those that are good
humanists, etc."

Good call. Reasonably arrived at by the biblical text.

Sunny
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:12

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise
you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

What are the OPERATIVE words of this script? "to not be seen by them." ONLY GOD can
read the inner motives of man. We all will be seen by someone when we do most things in this
crowded world. Only God knows IF a person is doing the good they do TO BE SEEN, for that
ego rush.

Murray
In Response To dori
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:10

OK, then. Good night.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:10

I did not only not see a changed soul, I saw no soul. I saw a particularly insidious form of
wickedness.

LOL, sorry but it is that funny. You best get those eyes checked, for they ain't serving you too
well. Seeing, you did NOT see. You couldn't see beyond your Mormon bias, I feel quite sure of
it. Thanks for every post, & have a good weekend. huggz~

Pig Cleaner
In Response To Gerry
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:09

,i>I rejoice in the fact that those who died in the WTC who were Christians are in heaven now. I
mourn for the others who had chances to be Christians but weren't.

So, if some man walked down a street targetting and shooting Christians, he'd be doing God's
will, and we should cheer him on, right?

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:08

The very fact that you and Sunny and others are singing the praises of this man actually fulfills
the Scripture. He has the earthly reward - the praises of men.

This scripture does NOT speak of every person that ever is spoken well of, or NO ONE would
have anything but an earthly reward per this scripture. Every good person has someone speaking
well of them at sometime. This scripture refers to such as the CEO of a great company, etc, of
those that are good humanists, etc.

dori
In Response To Murray
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 1:03

Well, I stand up for my friends and I considered him a good one. And I share my e-mails from
adversaries with my friends, so I guess I'm as reprehensible as he was. I don't share the e-mails
of people I consider friends, but if someone sends me obnoxious mail or things with veiled threats
of drip drip drip, I sure do share them. *-)

As for breaking forum rules, I don't think you have, but who's here to complain?

Murray
In Response To dori
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 0:45

"When a person tells a good friend about his/her life how is that good works that are done
before men?"

I knew quite a bit about his doings and I wasn't a friend. He posted these things publicly for all to
see. Look, I don't really think it's good to talk about him like this. Probably violates forum rules or
the spirit of them in any case. It's attacking someone personally. I know I brought it up, so I'm
responsible for bringing it in. So, I now take the responsibility for ending it. If you want to talk
about this more, you have the address.

Murray
In Response To dori
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 0:38

And what's this about him sharing my presumably private emails? You find this admirable?

dori
In Response To Murray
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 0:36

When a person tells a good friend about his/her life how is that good works that are done before
men? He did a wonderful thing, taking in his sister's children and giving her peace of mind when
she was dying. He never spoke of his activities in his church or as a youth leader on this forum.
He told me about those things as I told him of my life. Are you envious of this man's considerable
accomplishments to the point you have to belittle him to build yourself up? That's pretty sad. You
don't need to do that. When Gerry speaks of his helping the street people is he tooting his own
horn? I don't see it that way at all. I see it as him sharing his life with his online friends.

Murray
In Response To dori
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 0:21

Doris, to be a good debater proves nothing other than that. To have knowledge is really nothing.
Lots of people have knowledge. To do good works is also not necessarily indicative of much
either. However, when those good works are done before men, the Scripture is very clear. First
of all, it says to not do that and second it says the reward in that case is from men with no
heavenly reward. The very fact that you and Sunny and others are singing the praises of this
man actually fulfills the Scripture. He has the earthly reward - the praises of men. I don't mind
being bested in a debate by a skilled debater. I do mind people who stroke others for a desired
result. I hope some day you will appreciate why I did not choose this course with you.

dori
In Response To Sunny and Gerry
Sunday April 28, 2002 at 0:04

Sunny: I'm glad to see you back here sunshine. I think Murray has hard feelings for Praggie
because he finally met his match. Praggie and he had quite a lengthy debate going here that
finally ended up going into e-mail, which Scott forwarded to me to show how hateful Murray had
gotten to him. I think that's where these bad memories of Murray's are coming from. I think
Scott trounced him.

Gerry: Scott would be the first to agree with what you said about him. That's my point in listing
his good attributes. He didn't just spout words from scripture--he lived them as well.

Murray
In Response To I didn't write the book
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:56

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.
Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

(The words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter Six, Verse
One)

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:45

Yes, I saw it. I just don't buy it. A precious soul? It would appear he was. I just don't go by
appearances. You speak eloquently and rightly of a soul changing from within. I look for that and
take what people say very carefully to see if there's any sign of that. In this man's case, after
much voluminous posting, I did not only not see a changed soul, I saw no soul. I saw a
particularly insidious form of wickedness.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:42

I'll peek back in later. It is approaching seven PM here & we're doing carryout local cusine
tonight. I am the driver, so gotta get up from here. see ya afterwhile if you're nightowlin tonight.
huggz~

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:39

Charmed? I have eyes to see & I saw a precious soul. I suspect you are/were BLINDED by
that mormon talk. Just below in my previous posts it is explained clearly how & why Scott will
probably greet us in heaven if any of us makes it there.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:38

"...they speak of precious little doctrine."

Well, that doesn't describe Scott. He expounded on such things all the time. He not only drank
the Kool-Aid, he made it and served it plenty. He's better than I thought if he charmed you.

Sunny
In Response To Gerry~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:35

If you are not born again by the shed blood of Jesus Christ all the good works that you can do
will not get you there.

This true born again experience is NOT a study of the intellect. It is NOT an agreeing with bible
interpretation. It is a SOUL changing of which there is fruit, & it matters NOT what modern day
church of the apostasy one claims to attend. There'll be some of EVERY church in heaven, in
SPITE OF, not thanks to...that church. The pure in heart WILL SEE GOD...even if they attend
a mormon church. Rare? maybe...impossible..NO.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:37:43 04/28/02 Sun

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:34

I'm gone till morning which is really upon us already. Wow!!! These Saturday nights just seem to
get shorter and shorter as one gets older.

BBL GLW.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:32

I know how you think about the matter, & don't mind you repeating it. Being a mormon does
NOT automatically send one to hell anymore than being a member of another church sends to
heaven! I know denominations CANNOT stop themselves from finger pointing, as they feel they
are the truest church, while NONE of them is. "The" church is made up of members sprinkled all
over the globe, most of which have never met & they speak of precious little doctrine. They're
just busy BEING what they are, not studying, analyzing or even debating it, most of the time.
Like a bird that just is a bird, doesn't even take thought to how to do what it naturally does. So it
is with the remnant of true saved ones.

GerryB.
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:31

RE: "By their fruits they are known,"

That is right. Those who don't show by their works that they are saved probably are not. But as I
said in my post, I know many who are just as fine people as Praggie but they deny the teachings
of Christ. They aren't going to make it no matter how great their works are. If you are not born
again by the shed blood of Jesus Christ all the good works that you can do will not get you there.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:30

I don't want to argue. I just disagree with you. If ever there was a wolf in sheep's clothing, he is
one. The whole Mormon thing stinks literally to high heaven. They change definitions but don't
tell you. They change their doctrines and then deny they ever taught the old ones. Just the way
they dance around the polygamy thing should be enough to convince you.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:24

Pragman has more reward coming to him, in Heaven. If ANY person on this forum will make
heaven, & if any of us can discern this, Praggie'll be among the number.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:23

Oh we are living in very EXCITING times, as we shall see Jesus return in His glory, as
obviously as lightening in the sky. We'll see the rest of our bible fulfill, bad times with the good.
I'd trade it in a heartbeat, for my kids, mostly, but I think the spunkier among us had to live in this
time. Our energy is gonna be needed. (g)

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:22

Pragman already has his reward. See Matt 6:1-4.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:21

I like the old Chinese proverb, "May you live in interesting times." I agree with you that we have
lost a lot of wonderful things that we always thought we would have. We took them for a given.
But, now we must trust in the Lord even more and that is definitely a good thing. And also,
where sin abounds, grace even more abounds. Hallelujah!

Sunny
In Response To Gerry~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:19

While those are all fine things and would great on anyones resume they do not make one a
Christian.

By their fruits they are known, ya know, the true children of God! hmmm...no, works don't make
anyone a christian, not without faith, while faith without the works is DEAD. Pragman'll probably
open the pearly gate for you when you get there. It's what's in the heart, NOT what words one
says from one's church, that determines one's eternity. I think you still don't get it. huggz~

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:16

Nostalgic? You call this nostalgia in me? Nope, it is much more than that. It is that I am now an
ultra-conservative after having been the Texas Hell Cat & I treasure the safer, more moral time
they had, a time when perversion & the sins of the flesh weren't flaunted in living color on tv,
etc. Remember when kids could ride their bikes to the store for Mom without a worry of serious
harm to them? Best thing about this time on the calendar is that for the sake of the elect, it won't
last that much longer.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:14

Nostalgic I am not. I am about the farthest person you can find from that.

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:14

RE: "... Pragman, the deceiver, had 7 children of his own, adopted his sister's 5 kids (one of
them disabled) when she died, was an Elder in his church, coached a boy's soccer team, and was
active in all his parish activities."

While those are all fine things and would great on anyones resume they do not make one a
Christian. I know a lot of fine unbelievers who would do all those things and more. However God
is not going to ask those who desire to enter Heaven after their death to submit a resume of all
the great things which they have done. All He wants to know from you at that time is, "What is
your relationship with my son, Jesus Christ, whom I sent to be your redeemer ?"

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:09

I know that, but I don't have to LIKE the hustle & bustle of these busy days. I'd go back to the
fifties in a flash if I could. Guess it's the southern/country in me. Since I can't, I'll be thankful for
moments like this, when I can just sit. (g)

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:06

Nope, no Mayberry RFD for me. We were born for such a time as this and the Lord gives grace
and peace more than enough to handle it all.

Sunny
In Response To Murray~
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:03

LOL so much internet, so little time, sigh. (G) Ah I have precious little internet time these days.
Homeschooling, hubby & life keeping me so busy. Don't ya wish we could give up our
technology & live in Mayberry, RFD? I sure do & if possible, I'd give this stuff up for a slower,
more peaceful life.

Yes I like the sample from that writer, thanks for sharing. How are you? I hope great today.
Thanks for saying howdy. I'm a bit swamped with email, but getting them answered & resting a
spell after grocery shopping. huggz~

GerryB.
In Response To Sim @ 16:57
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:01

Thank you. I pray that God has filled your day with blessings and will do the same tomorrow and
all of your tomorrows.

Murray
In Response To Sunny
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 23:00

The butterfly of the Internet has just flitted in. LOL How are you doin' girl? You'd like this
George Fox guy. Here's a little piece I thought of you when I read, "Passing on, I went among
the professors at Duckingfield and Manchester, where I stayed awhile, and declared truth among
them. There were some convinced who received the Lord's teaching, by which they were
confirmed and stood in the truth. But the professors were in a rage, all pleading for sin and
imperfection, and could not endure to hear talk of perfection, and of a holy and sinless
life. But the Lord's power was over all, though they were chained under darkness and sin, which
they pleaded for, and quenched the tender thing in them.

GerryB.
In Response To Stephen
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:57

RE: Your 14:32. I am one who will take a stand for abstinence only programs. I for one am glad
that the USA is not like the pagan world, thank you. I pray that I will be allowed to have a hand
in teaching my young grandson to avoid sex with any girls unless he is first married to them. He
will then be following God's instructions from the Holy Bible to avoid fornication. If he has any
little sisters I will urge his Mom and Dad to teach them the same way. Abstinence until marriage
is the only right way.

Sunny
In Response To Amen....to dori's 21:19
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:47

.

Murray
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:46

Sure you did. The Lord just knew we both needed a good laugh!

Connie
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:42

Smart Alec! Guess I didn't word that right...grin!

Murray
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:38

You're welcome. Well, if they were greats of the past, they wouldn't be around in the present,
would they? :) Got your point, though. I think so anyway. :)

Connie
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:35

Thank you! Lot of reading there! I bookmarked it and will start reading tomorrow. I'm always
interested in reading about the "greats" of the past. Don't seem to be many of them around any
more.

Murray
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:29

GEORGE FOX An Autobiography Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Rufus M.
Jones, M.A., Litt. D

Connie
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:24

Is Fox's autobiography online. If it is, could you post the link? Thanks!


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:32:58 04/28/02 Sun

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:15

As far as Fox being a universalist, forget it. He was only in the sense that you and I talked about
a day or two ago. That Christ is universal. You can't read Fox and come up with anything other
than the fact that He was a biblical Christian. He rules out the possibility of embracing
universalism by speaking specifically of God's call on his life to,"...bring people off from all the
world's religions, which are vain..."

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 22:02

Fox is not really a free thinker as I define it, which is basically a non-conformist almost for its
own sake. Fox was driven by a wild, almost unquenchable hunger and thirst for the Truth. This
put him at odds with the religionists of the day. But, I can say for a fact, that my pastor would
gladly yield his pulpit to such a man as this as He clearly walked in the Spirit and in the power of
God that we do, but not to this extent. Fox had it going on. I'm almost catching fire reading this
thing. And, to think this guy lived almost 400 years ago. What a fight Satan has put up to keep
others like him from emerging onto the scene.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 21:57

Gonna go hug on my husband... TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 21:49

As with protestants, there are many brands of Quakers...I have a theory as to why there are so
many divisions and it has to do with being free thinkers to begin with...if they hadn't been, why
would they ever have challenged the RC Church, which was practically the ruler of the world at
that time. So rebels at heart, they even rebel against themselves...;)

Anyway there are some quite evangelical Quakers...our group hasn't been, but I am one who is
going back that direction, slowly, of course... I have a lot of distrust and false indoctrination from
my years as a fundy to overcome ...I must allow the Spirit to lead.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 21:31

Orthodox in my book. I am literally in the midst of doing a full reading of his autobiography and
am completely taken with the man and his beliefs. He believes exactly what I do, only better. I
could only wish to have the devotion the Lord Jesus Christ and his insight into the Scriptures,
which he, by his own hand, says, "They were very precious to me; for I was in that Spirit by
which they were given forth; and what the Lord opened in me I afterwards found was agreeable
to them."

This guy totally rocks and I dare say that he would also be tarred and feathered today -- in most
Quaker meeting houses.

dori
In Response To Stephen
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 21:19

God is everywhere. Christians follow Jesus's teachings about God, so God DOES have a lot to
do with Christianity--or at least He tries. As I said, you may find Him by meditating out in nature
a lot quicker than someone like ACNE will by poring over his Bible. His type of Christian
worships the Bible--not God and not Christ.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 21:15

George Fox was indeed a Christian, but orthodox? Hardly! He not only rebelled against the
Catholic church, but the Protestant reformation as well. His views were so radical at that time,
that he was tarred and feathered many times and eventually had to leave England for his own
safety. He taught that the Scripture was NOT our main access to God, but that every man could
have access by looking inward to the Inner Light of Christ in every soul... and by opening oneself
up to the Holy spirit. He challenged the need for priests and ministers and damnation fear tactics.
He dwelt on the Kingdom as an Earthly relationship as a child of God.

Stephen James
In Response To Dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 18:53

"Christianity (the belief in Christ as the son of God) has everything to do with God."

Christianity sure does try to have everything to do with God...they try. But that is not what I
said...I said, God does not have anything to do with Christianity. IMO.

Murray
In Response To Matthew 6:1-4
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 18:35

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise
you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do
not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that
they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you
do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your
charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you
openly.

Murray
In Response To dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 18:31

Like I said, you are easily charmed.

Stephen James
In Response To Sim
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 18:28

And Sim is short for Simpleton...but we all knew that from the content of your posts.

Sim 2
In Response To Dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 18:01

Behave yourself, if you can.

HAY, I don't mind doing you favors, I even enjoy them "sometimes", Howsomever, this is one of
those times when you are asking a "little tooo much", knowing me, don't ya think???

ROFL.

dori
In Response To Sim
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 17:06

Don't forget Bullpucky! Hee hee... Looks like we're the only two around, eh? And I'm almost
outta here myself. I have a dinner to go to with my hubby. An office party... oh joy! *-) Maybe
I'll catch ya later tonight or tomorrow. Behave yourself, if you can.

dori
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 17:03

I read your post to me about Pragman and I am sitting here smiling at your pettiness. Let's see...
Pragman, the deceiver, had 7 children of his own, adopted his sister's 5 kids (one of them
disabled) when she died, was an Elder in his church, coached a boy's soccer team, and was
active in all his parish activities. Yeah, that side-winder suckered me in all right.

Praggie was the reason I started reading the Bible again. He and I talked privately on IM all the
time and he knew more about my faith then than I did. Geesh, Murray, take a look at yourself,
will you?

Sim 2
In Response To Stephen
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 17:00

I've final figured out what the IMO represents that you keep typing.

I.diot M.ind O.perating.

LOL

Sim 2
In Response To ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 16:57

While I rarely if ever use the term "HOGWASH," I do use such terms as absurd, ridiculous,
nonsense, etc. But then I always follow it with an explanation of my basis in using the term. You
should try doing the same.

"HOGWASH" and "HORSEFEATHERS".

Rofl.

dori
In Response To Stephen
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 16:48

Christianity (the belief in Christ as the son of God) has everything to do with God. It is the
people who don't follow what Christ taught, while calling themselves Christians, who have
nothing to do with God. You have met too many of them, I'm afraid. That's unfortunate because
there are many fine Christians out here. I've met some wonderful examples. Don't let the
wild-eyed radical ones, all full of hell-fire and damnation, alienate you totally from God. If you
can find Him through sitting on a rock in the woods, let Him in.

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 15:20

Since this is a religion forum, I figured the topic was experiencing God, not experiencing life in
general.

People who blame God for the actions of men and women calling themselves Christians are just
ignorant, IMO. God has nothing to do with Christianity. Or so my experience with God has
shown me...and as far as the subject of God goes, my personal experience is ALL that matters
to me, yours amounts to a pile of dung from my perspective...more so when you feel I should
"learn" something about God from your experience. That is when I begin laughing...

Murray
In Response To SJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:43

By your standards, if a person can base their life only on the experiences they have personally
had, a person who has gets ripped off by a black man should then view all black men with
suspicion and distrust.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:36:07 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Stephen James
In Response To Part of the Reason American Kids are Dumb
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:32

Http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20020426/sc_nm/health_sex_dc_2

"Many studies have shown that open sex education that includes information about
contraception and that also attempts to build self-esteem can lower sexual activity rates and
result in fewer pregnancies and cases of disease, the report says."

"We have over 87 percent of Americans who believe there should be comprehensive sex
education in schools and we have a Congress that does not support this in their legislation,"

"It is a battle between religious conservatives and the rest of the country and the rest of the
world. We are holding young people hostage to ... conservative Christian views and it really is
an embarrassment."

Stephen James
In Response To Ismael
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:27

You need to change your VIP Ismael... :-)

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:26

"you continue to define things by the experiences you have had."

So, by whose experiences should Coinky be defining things by? Calvins? Luthers maybe?
Maybe she should define things based on your experiences, then she could be just like you!
Now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

`Ctaj
In Response To Stephen James
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:13

McKay found assassination "predictions" in Moby Dick for Indira Gandhi, Rene
Moawad, Leon Trotsky, Rev. M. L. King, and Robert F. Kennedy.

Well, call me Ismael.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 14:04

Does the viewer have foreknowledge of what floats are coming up next...yes indeed
because he can see them while the person on the ground can't. Don't know how to make it
any plainer than that.

Does the viewer have foreknowledge that the floats might change position during the parade?
Nope. If the can't change position, they have no free will. If they can, the viewer has no
foreknowledge.

Stephen James
In Response To Bible Code is Bunk
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 13:58

Http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink,/All
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 13:58

I have posted on the Alt R1 forum an excerpt from the autobiography of Quaker founder
George Fox. It completely dispels the notion that the Quakers started out to be anything but a
distinctly orthodox Christian group.

On Jesus Christ, Fox says, "I was sent to turn people from darkness to the Light, that they
might receive Christ Jesus; for to as many as should receive Him in His Light, I saw He would
give power to become the sons of God; which power I had obtained by receiving Christ."

On the Bible he says,"Yet I had no slight esteem of the holy Scriptures. They were very
precious to me; for I was in that Spirit by which they were given forth; and what the Lord
opened in me I afterwards found was agreeable to them."

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 13:48

Well sheesh! The person watching the parade from above can see the whole thing but has
nothing to do with the changes the parade organizers choose to make..that's their choice or
free will. The viewer can see the choices they make but in no way influences those choices.
Does the viewer have foreknowledge of what floats are coming up next...yes indeed because
he can see them while the person on the ground can't. Don't know how to make it any plainer
than that.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 13:29

Frankly, I don't see that your parade analogy illustrates the exercise of free will vs.
foreknowledge.

After you relay your message from your blimp to my buddy, does that preclude the
participants in the parade from changing positions? No, it doesn't. In that case, we'd have free
will and you lacking omniscience.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 13:13

You keep telling him he's wrong because the Denver Post said so but your buddy knows
you and the DP are wrong because I'm telling him what float is coming next because I can
see it from my vantage point above the parade and telling him which float is coming next.

Kinda like me telling you the bible is no more reliable than the Denver Post?

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 12:46

Sigh...let's try it this way! You and your buddy decide to go watch the Christmas parade. The
Denver Post has printed out the order in which each float will appear. You are both standing
on the sidewalk watching and you are telling your buddy what comes next; however, I'm
above the parade in the Goodyear Blimp and can see the beginning and the end and passing
the info on to your buddy. You keep telling him he's wrong because the Denver Post said so
but your buddy knows you and the DP are wrong because I'm telling him what float is coming
next because I can see it from my vantage point above the parade and telling him which float is
coming next.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 12:09

What don't you understand about that statement?

What don't you understand about the fact that if the choice you are about to make is known
beforehand, you don't really have a choice? It was supposedly pre-ordained, so your "free
will" isn't free.

It's all nonsense, of course, because you do have free will, nothing is pre-ordained, and there is
no God with foreknowledge of what's going to happen.

Murray
In Response To Here we go
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 12:02

Round and round we go. Where she stops, nobody knows.

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:59

You say the author is wrong but I think you are just refusing to give up your preconceived
notion. Note: " Being outside of the creation, He is able to view all of history and each
person's life and choices and see what they choose. What don't you understand about that
statement? Can't be any clearer unless you have a mind that's completely closed.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:50

He is able to view all of history and each person's life and choices and see what they
choose. Pre-knowledge by God does not negate the free will given to each human.The
author is wrong. If He knows how each person is going to choose with pre-knowledge, free
will is moot.

Connie
In Response To Interesting Website
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:28

Bible Codes

Also, the philosophical question arises, just how much free will do we have, if the historical
record was written down beforehand in prophecy and the Bible codes? The answer is that we
have free will, but the Author of the Bible and the codes is God, who stands outside the
creation and is not the creation itself as so many new-agers would have you believe. Being
outside of the creation, He is able to view all of history and each person's life and
choices and see what they choose. Pre-knowledge by God does not negate the free will
given to each human.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj and Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:24

It's 9:30. My husband finally got up, so I need to go feed him. See ya later. This morning was
fun. TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:19

Haha, OK, you win an all expense paid trip to my house for carrot cake and iced tea!
Yippee! Aren't you thrilled?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Doctrines
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:18

God is our Father who created us and we love him because we are his children and his love is
in us. This is the first true doctrine. Any other doctrines can be true or not true, depending on
one's adherance to the first one. That is, if God's love is not in him, then whatever else he says
is a lie.

`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:14

Do you think it is possible that the still small voice inside us might be God speaking? And
two, Do you think God is something separate from us or is he possibly inside us?

If I pick the right door, do I win a prize? OK, I pick door #3.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:08

" So, it's easy to talk about everyone being our brother and God being Father of us all, but the
extent to which this type of spirituality drives us is our measure." Yes, this and the extent to
which we realize that God is already in us...our relatedness to God is one of the key points of
Jesus' teachings, that sometimes is dilluted by the approach to God as something seperated
and outside ourselves. Doctrines can truly, as you say, get in our way to seeing God.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink, all
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:05

Later, gators.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 11:01

"Conscience: that still, small voice that makes us feel still smaller." Two questions come to
mind: Do you think it is possible that the still small voice inside us might be God speaking? And
two, Do you think God is something separate from us or is he possibly inside us?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:57

I looked up Matthew Fox because I didn't know who he was...He was a Dominican priest
who wrote some theology books based on a Creationist view of sprituality and got in trouble
with the Vatican. He's not a quaker, but some of his views are in sinc with some of theirs.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink 10:43
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:57

I share some of these thoughts. I also believe there is a lot more to it than this. Likewise, the
measure of our devotion to this type of thing can easily be seen by others. So, it's easy to talk
about everyone being our brother and God being Father of us all, but the extent to which this
type of spirituality drives us is our measure.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:33:56 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:46

Nope, I think you just found a blooper...It's supposed to be Matthew Fox...I doubt if he
knows who Michael J. Fox is...haha!

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:45

"Might as well welcome it. She sent a clear signal she was done talking along the previous
lines. Right or wrong?" I feel so powerful...I am woman, hear me roar! (giggle)

`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:43

Interesting comments by Bill on Quaker/Universalism. He quotes both a Micheal Fox and a
Matthew Fox. Related? Is this the Michael J. Fox of Back to the Future fame?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray & Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:43

I find that when people are actually open to experiencing God as a living being, they are more
apt to accept one another as brothers... all created beings are brothers in that God is our
father. When we see God that way, we cannot see each other as just "the Other"
anymore...we realize that inside we are all related. Of course, some don't need to relate to
God to realize our relatedness. Some are innately tuned into that fact. But psst, Ctaj,
confidentially, I think that is God's Spirit working in them...;)

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:39

Might as well welcome it. She sent a clear signal she was done talking along the previous lines.
Right or wrong?

`Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:32

Change of subject noted and also welcomed. :)

I'll bet.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:29

I differentiate between experiential knowledge of God and such comments as "I am sure my
church is the true church." People who have actually experienced God will always find a
kindred spirit with another who has likewise had an experience. Tying up our notion of God
too closely with the church with which we affiliate tells me, "That person does not know Him."

Change of subject noted and also welcomed. :)

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ya'll
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:20

I posted some notes on the alternative Rel1 by my husband, who is giving a lesson in a couple
of weeks at meeting about "Quaker Universalism"... It is not definative about ALL Quakers,
but shows that within our group there is a great difference of opinions about it. Differences are
tolerated in quite a open way within our group and disscussions seldom ever disintegrate into
fighting. The reason for that is that it is accepted that God's Spirit may speak to each of us on a
differnt level of understanding and that we can all still have fellowship in God's love.

Just thought you might enjoy reading the notes. :)

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:19

Seriously, we are all blessed with the ability to make whatever we want of our lives. We were
given a brain, and we are expected to use it. No God is going to do it for us.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:16

God is still working on me. How about you?

Nah, He knows he can't improve on some of his best work.

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:14

Ok. So it was at 9:58. Hang me for seven minutes. I readily admit that I'm not perfect. God is
still working on me. How about you?

I'm out of here. Got other things to do.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:12

We all form our ideas from our experiences or our indoctrination. I think we've about beat that
dead horse into submission. That said, let me apply it to our ideas about God. Those who
experience God, know him exclusively from then on through their experience and are unlikely
to change their minds about God just because someone else comes along and says, "My
experience is more real than yours" or worse, says, "Your expereince of God is invalid,
because of what I believe the Bible says about it." or worse, says, "Your experience must be
of a different God, because it is differnt than mine."

Yes, you're right,,,I'm changing the subject...How clever of you to notice...:)

Murray
In Response To All
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:11

Was Gerry going to get frustrated whether I openly speculated about it or not? Was my
comment indicative of an "us vs them" mentality or a simple glimpse into the facts as they
actually were? Likewise, if Mormons actually are generally deceptive and treacherous in their
dealings, why would there be a problem in simply pointing it out? They sure have been doing a
dance on that polygamy thing.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:16:19 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray & Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:43

I find that when people are actually open to experiencing God as a living being, they are more
apt to accept one another as brothers... all created beings are brothers in that God is our
father. When we see God that way, we cannot see each other as just "the Other"
anymore...we realize that inside we are all related. Of course, some don't need to relate to
God to realize our relatedness. Some are innately tuned into that fact. But psst, Ctaj,
confidentially, I think that is God's Spirit working in them...;)

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:39

Might as well welcome it. She sent a clear signal she was done talking along the previous lines.
Right or wrong?

`Ctaj
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:32

Change of subject noted and also welcomed. :)

I'll bet.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:29

I differentiate between experiential knowledge of God and such comments as "I am sure my
church is the true church." People who have actually experienced God will always find a
kindred spirit with another who has likewise had an experience. Tying up our notion of God
too closely with the church with which we affiliate tells me, "That person does not know Him."

Change of subject noted and also welcomed. :)

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ya'll
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:20

I posted some notes on the alternative Rel1 by my husband, who is giving a lesson in a couple
of weeks at meeting about "Quaker Universalism"... It is not definative about ALL Quakers,
but shows that within our group there is a great difference of opinions about it. Differences are
tolerated in quite a open way within our group and disscussions seldom ever disintegrate into
fighting. The reason for that is that it is accepted that God's Spirit may speak to each of us on a
differnt level of understanding and that we can all still have fellowship in God's love.

Just thought you might enjoy reading the notes. :)

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:19

Seriously, we are all blessed with the ability to make whatever we want of our lives. We were
given a brain, and we are expected to use it. No God is going to do it for us.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:16

God is still working on me. How about you?

Nah, He knows he can't improve on some of his best work.

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:14

Ok. So it was at 9:58. Hang me for seven minutes. I readily admit that I'm not perfect. God is
still working on me. How about you?

I'm out of here. Got other things to do.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:12

We all form our ideas from our experiences or our indoctrination. I think we've about beat that
dead horse into submission. That said, let me apply it to our ideas about God. Those who
experience God, know him exclusively from then on through their experience and are unlikely
to change their minds about God just because someone else comes along and says, "My
experience is more real than yours" or worse, says, "Your expereince of God is invalid,
because of what I believe the Bible says about it." or worse, says, "Your experience must be
of a different God, because it is differnt than mine."

Yes, you're right,,,I'm changing the subject...How clever of you to notice...:)

Murray
In Response To All
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:11

Was Gerry going to get frustrated whether I openly speculated about it or not? Was my
comment indicative of an "us vs them" mentality or a simple glimpse into the facts as they
actually were? Likewise, if Mormons actually are generally deceptive and treacherous in their
dealings, why would there be a problem in simply pointing it out? They sure have been doing a
dance on that polygamy thing.

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:10

God allows bad things to happen to so-called good people because it is His will to do so.
Being a Christian is no guarantee that bad things will never happen to you. This life is only
temporary. The resty of our lives is yet to come. "3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations
also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;"
Romans 5:3(KJV). Sometimes God uses the tribulations of this life to teach us things which He
wants us to know.

I rejoice in the fact that those who died in the WTC who were Christians are in heaven now. I
mourn for the others who had chances to be Christians but weren't.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:05

While I rarely if ever use the term "HOGWASH," I do use such terms as absurd, ridiculous,
nonsense, etc. But then I always follow it with an explanation of my basis in using the term.
You should try doing the same.

`Ctaj
In Response To Talking to himself
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:03

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:01

BTW Your response to me at 9:51 was nothing more than HOGWASH.

You're the only one who posted at 9:51, Gerry.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:03

"Isn't it more likely that the snakes like the ones from the ACNR forum are hiding within
the very churches that you all here are attending?"

Give us some credit for being discerning, Jeanie. Birds of a feather truly do flock together. It
really is very easy to spot where people are coming from. For the same reason I do not go to
this other forum, I do not hang around people like that IRL. Seemingly, you see people like
what's his name under every rock. I attribute that to negative experiences you have had with
such people. In a very real way, these experiences repeat themselves in your life and this will
continue until you release them. By and other word, this means forgiveness.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Gerry
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:02

"If that was the original "Reagan forum", you told the people there that you were a promoter of
witch craft. A wiccan. That was of course a lie. How did you expect people to accept you if
you started out with a lie? How many of those people who wouldn't accept you were
Christians? How do you know that they were? " If you were there, you know that I told them
that in reaction to the way they treated me. I later told them the truth and some understood and
we are friends today. However some will never try to understand how put off we, who are
"They", can be by the nasty things some Christians say to us.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:02

There are several examples in scripture of Jesus Christ being, God in human flesh, being
able to foresee things. This did not mean that he was the cause of those things.

No, but it does mean that whoever was the cause had no free will to change the outcome.

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 10:01

BTW Your response to me at 9:51 was nothing more than HOGWASH.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:58

Those of you who believe in predesitination, and that God is all-knowing and omniscient, must
be grappling with the WTC attack on 9-11.

Of nearly 40,000 people who worked in those buildings, the last count of dead and missing is
down to 2,823. Did those 2,823 have the wrong beliefs, or the right ones? Were those who
escaped the lucky ones, or God's rejects?

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:58

I already explained it once this morning to you and that is all that I'm going to do. If you can't
or won't understand it then there is no help for you and I'm not going to waste anymore time on
it. I do have a life away from this forum. I'm going to go live it. Good bye!!!

GerryB.
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:54

RE: Your previous comment to me.

Yes, I know that they will get it all confused and use it to attack the scriptures. All I can do is
try to get them to understand. If the don't wish to there is nothing that I can do about it.
SIGH!!!

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:53

Having foreknowledge of what was going to happen is not the same as predestination. In
predestination He would have been the cause of the event.

Either He knew what you were going to do, or He didn't. If He didn't know, He's not
all-knowing and omniscient. If He did know, you didn't have free will. You can dance around
it.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:51

People are not going to trust you until you show them that you are worthy of their trust.
Especially those who have been the target of your mistrust and bitterness in the past. Why
should they. We who are parents tell our children that if they want to have friends they must be
a friend first. Why should it be any different with adults?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:46

"In many of your comments, you reveal and "Us vs Them" mentality. "Watch out for them"
"They will run you in circles" "He was deceptive", but you discount that we who are them
are sincere as well. We have encountered God in a different way than you have, so you
discount us and make us "them", someone to be argued out of it or confronted with the
TRUTH, as though you have it and we "They" don't and can't possibly have. How is that
attitude different from ACNR's?"

For discussion's sake, I agree that this conclusion could easily be drawn about me. However,
the important question is, "Can you not see how this, at least in part, also describes you?"

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:45

RE: "us vs them"

Jesus Christ Himself said, "30He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not
with me scattereth abroad."
Matthew 12:30(KJV)

Sounds pretty "us vs them" to me.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:39

"What possible reason would I have to try to worship with a group who were like-minded
with them?"

None, of course.

My point to you is that, even now after I have made it several times in the past few hours, you
continue to define things by the experiences you have had. And, because you have had
negative experiences with certain folks which you seem unable to release, your negative
outlook conveys to others who may very well be completely undeserving of it. Sometimes
being bitten can be a self fulfilling prophecy and you yourself can actually do a little of it
yourself, which I think you realize. I know a woman who has a great fear of abandonment.
Uncannily, everyone has pretty much walked out on her. Of course, she pushed them out.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:12:39 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:38

RE: "I came to a forum"

If that was the original "Reagan forum", you told the people there that you were a promoter of
witch craft. A wiccan. That was of course a lie. How did you expect people to accept you if
you started out with a lie? How many of those people who wouldn't accept you were
Christians? How do you know that they were?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:34

In many of your comments, you reveal and "Us vs Them" mentality. "Watch out for them"
"They will run you in circles" "He was deceptive", but you discount that we who are them are
sincere as well. We have encountered God in a different way than you have, so you discount
us and make us "them", someone to be argued out of it or confronted with the TRUTH, as
though you have it and we "They" don't and can't possibly have. How is that attitude different
from ACNR's?

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:31

RE: "If He didn't, and if it was indeed free will, then He isn't all-knowning and omnicient.
Once again yoiu are getting foreknowledge and predestination mixed up.

Can't have both choices.
Not trying to. The way that I explained it is not predestination. It is simply being able to foresee
what is going to happen. There are several examples in scripture of Jesus Christ being, God in
human flesh, being able to foresee things. This did not mean that he was the cause of those
things.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:29

You say there are some who are different...OK, but how would I find them? What churches
are they hiding in? Isn't it more likely that the snakes like the ones from the ACNR forum are
hiding within the very churches that you all here are attending? An you give me a reason to
believe that it isn't that way?

There are many sincere people here...some I like and some I'm not crazy about. But I also
think the snakes are sincere as well. There are some here who are moved by the Spirit of God,
I've no doubt about that either... but I might have a different opinion about who they are. ;)

Murray
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:26

Now they're going to tell you that, by your comments, you're saying that God does not have
the power to cause events to happen as He wishes and, therefore, He is not omnipotent. The
problem is that you're allowing them to define the terms and the scope of the discussion and
they could keep you running around like a hamster in a cage until they either tire of it or you get
frustrated. They're counting on the latter. Don't say I didn't warn you. Let's see how it plays
out...

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

RE: "If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You
didn't really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained."

See my 9:20 for the answer to that. Having foreknowledge of what was going to happen is not
the same as predestination. In predestination He would have been the cause of the event.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Good Morning
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

Murray: I have attempted to get close to several fundamentalists in the 30 years since leaving
that church, even tried to re-establish friendships within that church group that I'd had for years
before. And invariably have been bitten for it. I came to a forum when my home-partner Jim
died and it was the Christians who treated me with disdain. I have been accused of being in
"league with the devil" for belonging to a different political party. Those same Christians post at
ACNR's and here. What possible reason would I have to try to worship with a group who
were like-minded with them?

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:20

RE: "Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze
and whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going
to do that?"

I think that he did but not because He predestined it but because He, being omniscient, could
look ahead down through the corridors of time and foresaw it.

Murray
In Response To Stephen James
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:33

Good Morning!

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:02

Bigot.

Murray
In Response To dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 6:16

One of the many underhanded things Mormons do is use traditional Christian terminology and
redefine it. Then, they go out in the marketplace and use the terminology amongst those whose
understanding of the terminology is traditional, making them think that Mormonism is the same
as or close to the same as traditional Christianity which it isn't. This is trickery, deceit,
manipulation -- whatever you want to call it. He did not like it when I called him on this, not
one bit. So, yeah, I can see why he was "disillusioned" as you put it. As far as you are
personally concerned, I sat here and watched him having you eat out of his hand. You should
be more careful, Doris, you are very easily charmed. In fact, you're the easiest mark I've ever
seen.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Doris
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 2:24

Why is it incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children
free-will?

Because words mean things. Stop being a Democrat and think about what the words mean.
It's not like I haven't explained the whole thing many times over, including today, so you should
be able to figure it out.

dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:41

That is undoubtedly the most ridiculous argument anyone has ever given on this site. Why is it
incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children free-will? Don't you
do the same thing with your child? Do you rule with a tight fist and never give her leeway to
have a conflicting opinion or do you let her test the tethers and come to judgements of her
own, thus allowing her to grow?

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:09

Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze and
whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going to do
that?

If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You didn't
really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained.

If He didn't, and if it was indeed free will, then He isn't all-knowning and omnicient.

Can't have both choices.

RonB
In Response To Catholic View - Redemption
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:04

The Catholic Church further teaches, that man co-operates in his justification by
co-operating, with perfect freedom, with the grace of God, which prompts and strengthens
him to do penance and amend his life. To be allowed to co-operate with the grace of God,
renders his consolation still greater, for it makes him conscious of a meritorious personal
triumph over his own passions and over the power of Satan.

More of at: Redemption

You also might want to read Desperation, isn't pretty

GerryB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:16

RE: "What is relevant is that God cannot possess the three attributes described and still create
a universe with Man's freewill."

HOGWASH.

dori
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:04

The Mormon you maligned earlier is probably one of the most spiritual people I've ever had
the pleasure of knowing. There wasn't a devious bone in his body. I do know you were his
greatest challenge and he said the very same thing about you in an e-mail to me when he finally
decided to leave R1 for good, having been so disillusioned with his encounter with you. It
seems to me, you were both more alike than you knew, eh?


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:09:11 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:29

You say there are some who are different...OK, but how would I find them? What churches
are they hiding in? Isn't it more likely that the snakes like the ones from the ACNR forum are
hiding within the very churches that you all here are attending? An you give me a reason to
believe that it isn't that way?

There are many sincere people here...some I like and some I'm not crazy about. But I also
think the snakes are sincere as well. There are some here who are moved by the Spirit of God,
I've no doubt about that either... but I might have a different opinion about who they are. ;)

Murray
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:26

Now they're going to tell you that, by your comments, you're saying that God does not have
the power to cause events to happen as He wishes and, therefore, He is not omnipotent. The
problem is that you're allowing them to define the terms and the scope of the discussion and
they could keep you running around like a hamster in a cage until they either tire of it or you get
frustrated. They're counting on the latter. Don't say I didn't warn you. Let's see how it plays
out...

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

RE: "If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You
didn't really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained."

See my 9:20 for the answer to that. Having foreknowledge of what was going to happen is not
the same as predestination. In predestination He would have been the cause of the event.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Good Morning
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

Murray: I have attempted to get close to several fundamentalists in the 30 years since leaving
that church, even tried to re-establish friendships within that church group that I'd had for years
before. And invariably have been bitten for it. I came to a forum when my home-partner Jim
died and it was the Christians who treated me with disdain. I have been accused of being in
"league with the devil" for belonging to a different political party. Those same Christians post at
ACNR's and here. What possible reason would I have to try to worship with a group who
were like-minded with them?

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:20

RE: "Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze
and whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going
to do that?"

I think that he did but not because He predestined it but because He, being omniscient, could
look ahead down through the corridors of time and foresaw it.

Murray
In Response To Stephen James
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:33

Good Morning!

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:02

Bigot.

Murray
In Response To dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 6:16

One of the many underhanded things Mormons do is use traditional Christian terminology and
redefine it. Then, they go out in the marketplace and use the terminology amongst those whose
understanding of the terminology is traditional, making them think that Mormonism is the same
as or close to the same as traditional Christianity which it isn't. This is trickery, deceit,
manipulation -- whatever you want to call it. He did not like it when I called him on this, not
one bit. So, yeah, I can see why he was "disillusioned" as you put it. As far as you are
personally concerned, I sat here and watched him having you eat out of his hand. You should
be more careful, Doris, you are very easily charmed. In fact, you're the easiest mark I've ever
seen.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Doris
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 2:24

Why is it incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children
free-will?

Because words mean things. Stop being a Democrat and think about what the words mean.
It's not like I haven't explained the whole thing many times over, including today, so you should
be able to figure it out.

dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:41

That is undoubtedly the most ridiculous argument anyone has ever given on this site. Why is it
incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children free-will? Don't you
do the same thing with your child? Do you rule with a tight fist and never give her leeway to
have a conflicting opinion or do you let her test the tethers and come to judgements of her
own, thus allowing her to grow?

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:09

Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze and
whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going to do
that?

If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You didn't
really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained.

If He didn't, and if it was indeed free will, then He isn't all-knowning and omnicient.

Can't have both choices.

RonB
In Response To Catholic View - Redemption
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:04

The Catholic Church further teaches, that man co-operates in his justification by
co-operating, with perfect freedom, with the grace of God, which prompts and strengthens
him to do penance and amend his life. To be allowed to co-operate with the grace of God,
renders his consolation still greater, for it makes him conscious of a meritorious personal
triumph over his own passions and over the power of Satan.

More of at: Redemption

You also might want to read Desperation, isn't pretty

GerryB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:16

RE: "What is relevant is that God cannot possess the three attributes described and still create
a universe with Man's freewill."

HOGWASH.

dori
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:04

The Mormon you maligned earlier is probably one of the most spiritual people I've ever had
the pleasure of knowing. There wasn't a devious bone in his body. I do know you were his
greatest challenge and he said the very same thing about you in an e-mail to me when he finally
decided to leave R1 for good, having been so disillusioned with his encounter with you. It
seems to me, you were both more alike than you knew, eh?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 21:51

"Perhaps, but."

What a use of the language, eh? You barely acknowledge what I said about how doctrine
seldom has much to do with what drives the actual belief system of a church group or
individuals within that group. And, then you quickly began to reiterate your past experience --
as if your experience defines the rest of Christianity. This is my biggest point to you, Jeanie.
There are a lot of very healthy churches out there. If you have never taken the time to look and
find out if that's true, fine. But, don't take your narrow experience and assume you know about
something in a broad scope from that. If they were all so similar, there wouldn't be so many of
them, would there be?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 21:05

"...we can't see the other's souls nor their lives other than what they reveal to us here.

Plenty gets revealed here. The people who post here regularly are quite sincere. The only one
that I ever thought was not is a certain Mormon gentleman who was I assess as being
extremely treacherous. Not at all what he seemed to be. Some here don't particularly like
TMS or Ctaj, but I do. They are actually very straightforward and post what they honestly
believe. They give as good as they get. Can't ask for more than that IMO.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:48

I'll check back later or early in the morning, OK? BTW I think you and Connie are nice
people and would never be as nasty as ACNR...but that's kind of what I said before if you'll
read it again carefully. ;) TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:46

I answered all my e-mail and talked awhile to my son, so now I have to give the puter back to
my husband, (who thinks he owns it! ;))

He's probably hungry too...it's almost 7 pm. TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:39

"Nope. A few posts and it's clear as clear can be. Stunningly so." Perhaps if you and I
compared our assessments of the others fruits, we might agree on some of them, but that is
kind of a futile thing to do...we can't see the other's souls nor their lives other than what they
reveal to us here.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:35

Too much of doctrine...Perhaps. But the church I used to go to had much the same doctrines,
but it was riddled with fornicators and liars and backbiters and arguments about who was right
and who was wrong all the time...meanwhile, how could you tell who were the real
Christians...I could count the ones I trusted on one hand. What would induce me to return to
that kind of environment? I can worship God better in my own garden...no matter what ACNR
calls me on account of that. Staying away from snakepits is a wise thing to do...and who can
tell where the snakes are hiding, if the "good" Christians are standing in the same pits. but
perhaps don't see the snakes?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:35

"So you have to look at the fruit of the Spirit, which is hard to see from just someone's
words online, isn't it?"

Nope. A few posts and it's clear as clear can be. Stunningly so.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:32

"I don't think either of them behaves in person or at their churches the way they do online,
do you?

Actually, yes I do. Remarkably close to it. People like this are easily and quickly marked. It's
not very hard at all. They will easily find others like them and they will all act the same way
together. Likewise, if they stumble into a church that does not share their attitude, they will be
noticed there and probably never return.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:28

"However are your doctrines significantly different from Tamarisk and ACNR?"

You make way too much out of doctrine. But, I do not believe that you have never taken the
time to look closely at how and why church groups with the same or nearly the same doctrine
vary. I guarantee you that what's his name's church and Martin Luther King's church have
almost identical Christian doctrine. But look at the difference between the two people. You've
got to try to understand why this is and one of the first things you'll see when you do that is that
doctrine almost always is not what drives a church group and the individuals in that group to
believe and live as they do. As incredible as it sounds, it is the case.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:16

"Perhaps I am a little wary of most fundamentalists, but with good reason, based on the
treatment I have recieved from them."

OK, so now we see that you have been offended by certain people in your past and that you
have not released them. Because of that, you have a visceral reaction to others who it seems to
you might be somewhat like them. This is at least a partial explanation for your viewpoint.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Sooo
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:05

If being careful about which Christians to trust is being bigoted, so be it...I won't argue that
with you. You may be right...:)


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:56:30 04/27/02 Sat

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 19:56

About a month ago I asked here and at ACNR's forum who are the real Christians. They of
course wouldn't tell me which church they attend, but hen Gerry is the only one besides the
Catholics and me, who does. The rest are anonimous believers or generic so to speak. So you
have to look at the fruit of the Spirit, which is hard to see from just someone's words online,
isn't it?


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:55:06 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:29

You say there are some who are different...OK, but how would I find them? What churches
are they hiding in? Isn't it more likely that the snakes like the ones from the ACNR forum are
hiding within the very churches that you all here are attending? An you give me a reason to
believe that it isn't that way?

There are many sincere people here...some I like and some I'm not crazy about. But I also
think the snakes are sincere as well. There are some here who are moved by the Spirit of God,
I've no doubt about that either... but I might have a different opinion about who they are. ;)

Murray
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:26

Now they're going to tell you that, by your comments, you're saying that God does not have
the power to cause events to happen as He wishes and, therefore, He is not omnipotent. The
problem is that you're allowing them to define the terms and the scope of the discussion and
they could keep you running around like a hamster in a cage until they either tire of it or you get
frustrated. They're counting on the latter. Don't say I didn't warn you. Let's see how it plays
out...

GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

RE: "If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You
didn't really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained."

See my 9:20 for the answer to that. Having foreknowledge of what was going to happen is not
the same as predestination. In predestination He would have been the cause of the event.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Good Morning
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:24

Murray: I have attempted to get close to several fundamentalists in the 30 years since leaving
that church, even tried to re-establish friendships within that church group that I'd had for years
before. And invariably have been bitten for it. I came to a forum when my home-partner Jim
died and it was the Christians who treated me with disdain. I have been accused of being in
"league with the devil" for belonging to a different political party. Those same Christians post at
ACNR's and here. What possible reason would I have to try to worship with a group who
were like-minded with them?

GerryB.
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 9:20

RE: "Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze
and whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going
to do that?"

I think that he did but not because He predestined it but because He, being omniscient, could
look ahead down through the corridors of time and foresaw it.

Murray
In Response To Stephen James
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:33

Good Morning!

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 8:02

Bigot.

Murray
In Response To dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 6:16

One of the many underhanded things Mormons do is use traditional Christian terminology and
redefine it. Then, they go out in the marketplace and use the terminology amongst those whose
understanding of the terminology is traditional, making them think that Mormonism is the same
as or close to the same as traditional Christianity which it isn't. This is trickery, deceit,
manipulation -- whatever you want to call it. He did not like it when I called him on this, not
one bit. So, yeah, I can see why he was "disillusioned" as you put it. As far as you are
personally concerned, I sat here and watched him having you eat out of his hand. You should
be more careful, Doris, you are very easily charmed. In fact, you're the easiest mark I've ever
seen.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Doris
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 2:24

Why is it incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children
free-will?

Because words mean things. Stop being a Democrat and think about what the words mean.
It's not like I haven't explained the whole thing many times over, including today, so you should
be able to figure it out.

dori
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:41

That is undoubtedly the most ridiculous argument anyone has ever given on this site. Why is it
incompatible for an all-knowing and omniscient God to give his children free-will? Don't you
do the same thing with your child? Do you rule with a tight fist and never give her leeway to
have a conflicting opinion or do you let her test the tethers and come to judgements of her
own, thus allowing her to grow?

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:09

Let me try to explain it to you. When you decided to give up your decadent life of booze and
whatever other sins you were committing, did God know in advance that you were going to do
that?

If He did, being all-knowing and omnicient, then it wasn't really your choice, was it? You didn't
really have "free will," because it was pre-ordained.

If He didn't, and if it was indeed free will, then He isn't all-knowning and omnicient.

Can't have both choices.

RonB
In Response To Catholic View - Redemption
Saturday April 27, 2002 at 1:04

The Catholic Church further teaches, that man co-operates in his justification by
co-operating, with perfect freedom, with the grace of God, which prompts and strengthens
him to do penance and amend his life. To be allowed to co-operate with the grace of God,
renders his consolation still greater, for it makes him conscious of a meritorious personal
triumph over his own passions and over the power of Satan.

More of at: Redemption

You also might want to read Desperation, isn't pretty

GerryB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:16

RE: "What is relevant is that God cannot possess the three attributes described and still create
a universe with Man's freewill."

HOGWASH.

dori
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 23:04

The Mormon you maligned earlier is probably one of the most spiritual people I've ever had
the pleasure of knowing. There wasn't a devious bone in his body. I do know you were his
greatest challenge and he said the very same thing about you in an e-mail to me when he finally
decided to leave R1 for good, having been so disillusioned with his encounter with you. It
seems to me, you were both more alike than you knew, eh?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 21:51

"Perhaps, but."

What a use of the language, eh? You barely acknowledge what I said about how doctrine
seldom has much to do with what drives the actual belief system of a church group or
individuals within that group. And, then you quickly began to reiterate your past experience --
as if your experience defines the rest of Christianity. This is my biggest point to you, Jeanie.
There are a lot of very healthy churches out there. If you have never taken the time to look and
find out if that's true, fine. But, don't take your narrow experience and assume you know about
something in a broad scope from that. If they were all so similar, there wouldn't be so many of
them, would there be?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 21:05

"...we can't see the other's souls nor their lives other than what they reveal to us here.

Plenty gets revealed here. The people who post here regularly are quite sincere. The only one
that I ever thought was not is a certain Mormon gentleman who was I assess as being
extremely treacherous. Not at all what he seemed to be. Some here don't particularly like
TMS or Ctaj, but I do. They are actually very straightforward and post what they honestly
believe. They give as good as they get. Can't ask for more than that IMO.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:48

I'll check back later or early in the morning, OK? BTW I think you and Connie are nice
people and would never be as nasty as ACNR...but that's kind of what I said before if you'll
read it again carefully. ;) TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:46

I answered all my e-mail and talked awhile to my son, so now I have to give the puter back to
my husband, (who thinks he owns it! ;))

He's probably hungry too...it's almost 7 pm. TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:39

"Nope. A few posts and it's clear as clear can be. Stunningly so." Perhaps if you and I
compared our assessments of the others fruits, we might agree on some of them, but that is
kind of a futile thing to do...we can't see the other's souls nor their lives other than what they
reveal to us here.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:35

Too much of doctrine...Perhaps. But the church I used to go to had much the same doctrines,
but it was riddled with fornicators and liars and backbiters and arguments about who was right
and who was wrong all the time...meanwhile, how could you tell who were the real
Christians...I could count the ones I trusted on one hand. What would induce me to return to
that kind of environment? I can worship God better in my own garden...no matter what ACNR
calls me on account of that. Staying away from snakepits is a wise thing to do...and who can
tell where the snakes are hiding, if the "good" Christians are standing in the same pits. but
perhaps don't see the snakes?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:35

"So you have to look at the fruit of the Spirit, which is hard to see from just someone's
words online, isn't it?"

Nope. A few posts and it's clear as clear can be. Stunningly so.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:32

"I don't think either of them behaves in person or at their churches the way they do online,
do you?

Actually, yes I do. Remarkably close to it. People like this are easily and quickly marked. It's
not very hard at all. They will easily find others like them and they will all act the same way
together. Likewise, if they stumble into a church that does not share their attitude, they will be
noticed there and probably never return.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:28

"However are your doctrines significantly different from Tamarisk and ACNR?"

You make way too much out of doctrine. But, I do not believe that you have never taken the
time to look closely at how and why church groups with the same or nearly the same doctrine
vary. I guarantee you that what's his name's church and Martin Luther King's church have
almost identical Christian doctrine. But look at the difference between the two people. You've
got to try to understand why this is and one of the first things you'll see when you do that is that
doctrine almost always is not what drives a church group and the individuals in that group to
believe and live as they do. As incredible as it sounds, it is the case.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:16

"Perhaps I am a little wary of most fundamentalists, but with good reason, based on the
treatment I have recieved from them."

OK, so now we see that you have been offended by certain people in your past and that you
have not released them. Because of that, you have a visceral reaction to others who it seems to
you might be somewhat like them. This is at least a partial explanation for your viewpoint.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Sooo
Friday April 26, 2002 at 20:05

If being careful about which Christians to trust is being bigoted, so be it...I won't argue that
with you. You may be right...:)


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:46:22 04/27/02 Sat

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 19:53

Oh, there you are! Perhaps I am a little wary of most fundamentalists, but with good reason,
based on the treatment I have recieved from them. However are your doctrines significantly
different from Tamarisk and ACNR? I didn't realize that. I don't think either of them behaves in
person or at their churches the way they do online, do you? That is part of my point. My old
acquaintences form church were very careful not to show their fanatic side to those who would
not agree with them or who might censure them at church. But here online, there are no such
restraints.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ya'll
Friday April 26, 2002 at 19:48

Nobody seems to be here with me, so I'll leave this little tidbit...Einstein must have been a fun
guy..he said so many pithy things...

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 19:47

You say that all those people could be going to the same church, but they couldn't and
wouldn't. You say that whatever his name is could be a deacon in my church, but it would
never happen. You give us no credit for being discriminating or discerning when it is you that is
not. Because you did not find one that is, you can not allow for a healthy church that is based
on the traditional Christian articles of faith. Not only your ignorance, but your anitpathy toward
any church that is or claims to be traditional Christianity is clear, not just now, but over a long
period of time. And by lumping good and sincere people in with that other guy, you condemn
them. In this and by the other ways mentioned, you show yourself to have the attitude of a
bigot.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ten megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:30

In the first place, let me say that I don't take the creation story as a literal history of creation...it
was a legend or traditional story handed down word of mouth for a long time before someone
wrote it down. In fact, I believe there are 2 versions of it, because there was more than one
group of Hebrews that came together to form one nation of Israel. Even so, I'd like to ask you
a question. Would a God who created man to be a puppet or robot without free will be a
better God or a worse one?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:25

I chose to reply to the one part of your post that I felt would NOT result in an arguement and I
made it into a joke (which you have trouble recognizing, it seems)...but I realize that whatever I
say you are going to criticize it, so why do I bother to try to be civil? I do it because I want to
be civil to you...can't you try to see that?

OK...:) This means what I have said is mildly amusing to me. ;) This means its irony or sarcasm
or just kidding. :P And this means I'm sticking my tongue out and going PPPFFFT! :D this one
means I'm laughing and happy. When I'm being nasty I'll try to tell you, OK?

Sim 2
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:21

If God was all powerful, He could prevent Satan's actions.
So, why is it, then, that Satan bears the burden of blame?

"Freewill".

Adam and Eve were also "perfect" when created, but having "Freewill" was their "downfall".

Sure God could have created "robots", but then "LOVE" can't be "programmed", it can only
be an "ACT OF FREEWILL" of the individual.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:18

Gerry has admited that his doctrinal stances are the same as ACNR's...so what is the real
difference? That ACNR abuses people with more rude language or that he hates women? I
wager that if he were a deacon in your church, you wouldn't recognise him as ACNR, unless
he slips up and shows his true abusive nature, like he does in the forums. Now nothing I have
said means that you or Gerry or Connie would behave as he does, does it? No, I didn't say
that at all. As for condemnation, what condemnation?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:14

What part of this statement do you refute? What part of it makes me a bigot? Here's what i
said, ""Sad or not, most of the doctrines that Acnr or Tamarisk posts are the same as the ones
espoused here...they are ruder, but about the same brand of Christian as far as I can see. You
could all be going to the same church, except for Dori, who is Catholic. It would be hard to
recognise ACNR in his sunday suit singing in the pew next to you." (continued)


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 16:09:36 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)


[home] [vip] [post] [next]
MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:06
Dinner time. Something we both can understand.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:00
When He was setting up the Universal Boundary Values, She set them up exactly as It wished.
Being all knowing, She knew what effect each invididual parameter would have when she established it.
Being all powerful, He was able to establish those parameters exactly as He willed.

Taking all of these as a given, you still don't know how those things play out. You still can't make an "if this, then that" statement of logic out of all of this. You still can't, based on your earthbound observations, conclude you correctly perceive either the parameters or their outworking.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:53
I gotta go watch kids. Bye.

Have fun.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:52
You say my conclusion is false without providing substantive argument. Time for you to get to work, and lets' see if you can do a better job than Murray. He seems to be in over his head.

Actually, since you made the assertion, it is up to you to support it. Repeating the same premise again and again is not argument, but simply a statement of faith. You believe God is either perfect or infallible, but your belief is not bolstered by logic -- it only an opinion that is convenient to your belief system.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:42
You say my conclusion is false without providing substantive argument. Time for you to get to work, and lets' see if you can do a better job than Murray. He seems to be in over his head.

I gotta go watch kids. Bye.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:40
The issue is that neither you nor I have ability to understand what "makes no mistakes" means

No. You apparently have difficulty with this topic, but I don't. If God makes no mistakes, then when He was setting up the Universal Boundary Values, She set them up exactly as It wished.

Being all knowing, She knew what effect each invididual parameter would have when she established it.

Being all powerful, He was able to establish those parameters exactly as He willed.

I know what words mean. There is no ambiguity here, regardless of your efforts to create it. What part of "No Mistakes" is too difficult for you?
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:39
So is God perfect, or is He fallible?

God is both perfect and infallible. Unfortunately your logic is neither.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:38
If God exists, then freewill cannot.

Since this premise is false, and is your mere opinion, the following conclusions are false.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:34
If God was perfect, Satan could not rebel against the plan. He could only think he was rebelling because he lacked knowledge of the plan.

Again, this does not logically follow. As with man, God gave the angels free will. Why do you assume that a perfect God could not make creatures who could choose to rebel? As for "lacking knowlege of the plan" -- what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If, as your commander, I order to do such-a-such and you disobey my orders you are still rebelling, whether you knew I issued the order or not.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:33
Who's not addressing the issue? The issue is that neither you nor I have ability to understand what "makes no mistakes" means when attempting to apply it to God. You are going past the limits of your ability to understand and you can't accept that. That's the issue as I see it.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:24
No. You've just proved that you can't address the issue. Perfection, as was defined earlier, means "Makes no mistakes". That's one of the premises. If this definiton of the word "perfect" does not apply to God, then that means God can make mistakes.

So is God perfect, or is He fallible?

"Omniscience" means "Possessing all knowledge". If God is not omniscient, then He does not possess all knowledge. Which do you pick?

What you are trying to do is to remove the three attributes without openly doing so, since that would require you to deny your image of God. I'm not stupid, and you can't do that honestly.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:21
"So is our understanding of the word perfect imperfect?"

You're catching on.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:19
So is our understanding of the word perfect imperfect? Or are we lacking knowledge of omniscience? Clearly we don't have the power of omnipotence.

Regardless, in which one of those attributes ls our failing? Either those words mean what they say, or they do not. Make a choice.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:15
My objections to what you say are summarized by the following:

God is neither limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscibed by our definition of Him. Make that the first attribute.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:11
Your surmise is not invincible.

Vanquish it, then. That's why it was posted. I've even given you the correct areas to adress its failures if you can identify any.

You keep saying I limit God to those three attributes. I do not. I say that if She has those three then freewill cannot exist. I make no mention of other alleged attributes because they do not pertain.

If God has those three. That is the key. Are you saying God does not have all three? Then say so. Are you saying that my conclusions are invalid with the Three? Then say how.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:07
"The Truth is sharp, and it doesn't seem to agree with you."

I could just as easily say likewise. Your surmise is not invincible.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:05
That's your opinion. There's a premise on the table and I don't buy it. It's narrow and simplistic. It limits God to three immutable attributes and to our ability to understand what those attributes mean. I neither have to accept the three attributes as being the only three there are nor do I have to accept that any of us can understand what they mean when we attempt to apply them to God.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:04
And you don't have to be right, either. I'm used to that, when this argument comes up. No one has refuted it yet, everyone has resorted to weasel defintions and avoidance tactics.

The Truth is sharp, and it doesn't seem to agree with you.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:00
Sure you can.

No, I can't, Murray. You are showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:00
"My "limited" view has placed limits on what your God can do. That's a fine thing to do."

Do whatever you want. I don't have to buy it. I am not obligated to accept your etymology or even to be limited by a three attributes.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To correction
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:59
...shouldn't believe a word you say...
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:59
Murray to RonB: "Having a son who is an Eagle Scout, I know about this from going through the program with him."

I gather we should believe a word you say.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:58
Well, then give me credit for imagining a God different from the one Basil insists I must of necessity believe in.

Identify where your beliefs contradict what I've said. Are you saying God is not Perfect? That He's not Omniscient, or that He's not All Powerful?

If She is all three, then I've laid out why, using proper logical construction, Man's freewill is a fiction.

That's all I've done. And, as usual, the common and only response to this rational proposition is a retreat into irrationaliy and emotion.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:57
:Sorry, I can't do that.

Sure you can.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:55
"You never did tell me what notions your son has about marriage that you find so unrealistic.

I don't really have a son. I was taking poetic license. After all, we are dealing with an imaginary, i.e. fictional subject.
[next] [post]
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 16:06:39 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)


[home] [vip] [post] [first] [next]
MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:54
My "limited" view has placed limits on what your God can do. That's a fine thing to do.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:53
"The only limits to God are the limits of your imagination, since that's what created Him.

Well, then give me credit for imagining a God different from the one Basil insists I must of necessity believe in.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:53
God is not limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscribed by our definition of or enumeration of his attributes.

Sure She is. Are you saying "perfect" doesn't have the defintion applied? Nor "omniscient", nor "omnipotent"? It doesn't really matter what you call the concepts, God either has them, or It does not.

In what way does God depart from "Perfection"? What item of Knowledge does She lack? What can He not Do if He so Wills (outside of engendering freewill in Her Creations)?

I understand things perfectly. I am using the defninitions of the words as they are intended to be used. If the uses are wrong, state how, and why.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:52
You never did tell me what notions your son has about marriage that you find so unrealistic.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:51
Why should this upset me? It is only your limited view of things.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:51
God is not limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscribed by our definition of or enumeration of his attributes.

The only limits to God are the limits of your imagination, since that's what created Him.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:49
To really upset you, I'll state the final conclusion:

If God exists, then freewill cannot. If freewill does not exist, then "sin" cannot have a valid definition, since "sin" requires volitional violation of God's commands.

Furthermore, if freewill does exist, then God cannot. And hence "sin" cannot exist, either, since it requires a God to make commands to break.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:48
Already did it. My objections to the vaunted three attributes are summarized by the following:

God is not limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscribed by our definition of or enumeration of his attributes.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:48
Your three attributes are insufficient as well as your understanding of them and of the general subject area.

Actually, the three attributes defined are so eminently compatible with the myth of God, and so eminently incompatible with the reality of freewill that those wishing both doctrines are true are forced to say that my comprehension of the matter is insufficient even though they themselves have not revealed their ability to refute what I say.

If you are going to invoke mysterious additional attributes you claim are not irrelevant, then you need to actually define them. Do so.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:40
Your three attributes are insufficient as well as your understanding of them and of the general subject area.

Why? Please articulate your position as well as Basil articulated his. You have a nasty habit of building forts without foundations.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:36
"As you can see, you are attempting to discard one of the three attributes without actually discarding it. If I hold you to applying all three attributes to your God, you cannot envisage free will."

Your three attributes are insufficient as well as your understanding of them and of the general subject area.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:17
As you can see, you are attempting to discard one of the three attributes without actually discarding it. If I hold you to applying all three attributes to your God, you cannot envisage free will.

Ta da!
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Dori
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:13
Are you a red delicious? No...judging from yesterday's posts, you must be a blueberry.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:12
An all-powerful God can chose to allow others to act according to their own wills. Still no problem. And your logic still does not follow.

Only if he does not know what those choices shall be. And thus my logic is still consistent, because I use all the words, all the time.
[Verified dori] dori
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:12
Bite me.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:11
They chose to oppose God at the urging of Satan and aligned themselves with God's enemy.

If God was perfect, Satan could not rebel against the plan. He could only think he was rebelling because he lacked knowledge of the plan.

If God is omniscient, He knew exactly what Lucifer was going to do when he built him.

If God was all powerful, He could prevent Satan's actions.

So, why is it, then, that Satan bears the burden of blame?
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To All
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:08
My wife is claiming the computer. So I'll have to check in later. May God be with all of good will.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:07
They chose to oppose God at the urging of Satan and aligned themselves with God's enemy.

Right, a talking snake. The fruit must've been fermented.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:05
No, it doesn't. That's why I specified that omnipotence is one of the key attributes. Quit trying to parse the problem and deal with the whole thing as presented.

An all-powerful God can chose to allow others to act according to their own wills. Still no problem. And your logic still does not follow.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:04
I have friends over sometimes. I have a cherry tree and a peach tree, where an apple tree used to be. If they decide to eat a piece of my fruit, I don't consider it betrayal.

I think there was a bit more involved here than a piece of fruit, don't you? In the case of Adam and Eve it was a definite act of betrayal. They chose to oppose God at the urging of Satan and aligned themselves with God's enemy.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:02
Yes, but your logic and understanding are flawed. To know what someone will choose is not to direct that choice. One does not follow from the other.

No, it doesn't. That's why I specified that omnipotence is one of the key attributes. Quit trying to parse the problem and deal with the whole thing as presented.
Romans 11:23
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:00
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:57
I've been explaining that this whole page. Because the definition of God is incompatible with the definition of "freewill".

Yes, but your logic and understanding are flawed. To know what someone will choose is not to direct that choice. One does not follow from the other.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:56
I have friends over sometimes. I have a cherry tree and a peach tree, where an apple tree used to be. If they decide to eat a piece of my fruit, I don't consider it betrayal.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:55
And his will was that men freely choose him, not be his robots.

But if He is an all-knowning, omnicient God, he knows beforehand which men will "freely choose" him, and which will not. And if that's the case, they aren't "freely choosing."
[first] [next] [post]
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 16:00:30 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)


[home] [vip] [post] [first] [prev] [next]
MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:52
Also, that the Boy Scouts are looking better and better all the time for their position and policies and for their aggressive and relentless implementation thereof.

I agree. It's ridiculous that the Scouts were attacked for their reasonable position.
[Verified Sim 2] Sim 2
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:51
"Time to Clean House in the Catholic Church."

Does that also include the Homosexual/abortion supporting Representatives in Government, like Ted Kennedy, Barney Franks?

Those who support them and their "other doctrine" are as guilty as them.

2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

If they support these men and their "equal rights" for Homo's, what's wrong with a "predator" for a "Priest"???

Without the "Catholic" support, neither could be elected.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To dori
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:51
I find it revealing that you addressed the one part of my post that was trivial, yet ignored the part which explained why your original post to me was misleading. Aren't you the one who accuses me of only wanting to discuss superficial things while you, heavyweight mental giant that you are, prefer the highbrow intellectual discussion? Then, after ignoring my explanation, you tell Stephen that I must have been imagining the baby's head stuck in a paint can when I admonished you about exposing it to paint fumes? LOL!

Now, do you see why I prefer not to respond to your posts? ROFLMPRAVBO!

In the immortal words of the all-powerful, all-knowing, omnicient Moderator, "Take it to email."
[Verified dori] dori
In Response To For those who care...
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:49
My puter at home has a virus and I can't get online til Daddy comes back from Hawaii to fix it. Sooo, if you don't see me around for awhile, that's where I am... home reading!

God bless!
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:49
"What is relevant is that God cannot possess the three attributes described and still create a universe with Man's freewill."

I take this as your assertion based on your understanding. And, I still say that God is not limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscribed by our definition of his attributes. In other words, I do not accept your conclusions no matter how many times you put them up here or how many different ways you try to explain them. It may be a news flash to you, but you do have limitations. On this subject, they are showing.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:48
God either does, or does not possess the power to implement Her will.

And his will was that men freely choose him, not be his robots.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To GerryB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:46
I would guess then that you don't use the word "saints" in the same way in which Paul used it is his epistles...

St. Paul in Hebrews 12 writes:

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

What does St. Paul mean here with the phrase "the spirits of just men made perfect?"
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:42
When Adam & Even were in a state of grace, they walked with God and were his friends, not his robots.

A friend wouldn't do to Adam and Eve what God allegedly did.

Come on. You believe in talking snakes, and that there was no death before Eve chowed down on the forbidden fruit. And you accuse me of a lapse in logic?
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:41
If God is perfect (error-free), if God is omniscient (all-knowing), and if God is omnipotent (all-powerfull), then Man is a pre-programmed machine following pre-established paths and He has no choice whatsoever in what He does.

Of course this is an error in logic. Because God knows what we will do, doesn't mean we are compelled to do one thing or another. God is perfect (error free) but he created man with free-will -- the right to choose his destiny. Man is not error free.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:40
To believe in God is to deny of Freewill.

I've been explaining that this whole page. Because the definition of God is incompatible with the definition of "freewill".
[Verified dori] dori
In Response To Coinky
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:38
I find it revealing that you addressed the one part of my post that was trivial, yet ignored the part which explained why your original post to me was misleading. Aren't you the one who accuses me of only wanting to discuss superficial things while you, heavyweight mental giant that you are, prefer the highbrow intellectual discussion? Then, after ignoring my explanation, you tell Stephen that I must have been imagining the baby's head stuck in a paint can when I admonished you about exposing it to paint fumes? LOL!

Now, do you see why I prefer not to respond to your posts? ROFLMPRAVBO!
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:37
Which attributes are left out that either enhance or detract from the necessary attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and perfection? In what ways do these mysterious attributes enhance or detract? How can one enhance or detract from perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence without necessarily eliminating the concept entirely?

If one is perfect, one cannot be made more perfect.

How can one be more powerful than all-powerful? One cannot be all powerful if one becomes less powerful.

And in one knows all there is to know, how can he know more?

There may or may not be other attributes for your God. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God cannot possess the three attributes described and still create a universe with Man's freewill.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:37
Because God made him that way. To believe in God is to deny of Freewill.

How so?
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:35
"It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.

Ayn Rand is free to express whatever opinion he/she wishes. It doesn't make it true. When Adam & Even were in a state of grace, they walked with God and were his friends, not his robots. If, as Ayn Rand says, men were robots before the fall, how did they choose to sin and "fall." A serious lapse in logic.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:34
Hi, Ron. I intentionally did not mention your church by name, because this type of thing is not necessarily confined to it. Besides, my main point is the rank hypocrisy and almost complete lack of a moral compass of the news media. Also, that the Boy Scouts are looking better and better all the time for their position and policies and for their aggressive and relentless implementation thereof. Having a son who is an Eagle Scout, I know about this from going through the program with him. Where can I read Buchanan's article, BTW.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:29
The flaw in this false dichotomy lies in the assumption that one loses nothing when one sacrifices the integrity of his mind.

Which is why Belloc countered Blaise Pascal's wager "logic" with the words of St. Paul, who said (words to the effect anyhow), "If our Faith is false we are the most misreble of men."
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:27
What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the current church sexual abuse scandal? The Boy Scouts have had aggressive policies in force to protect children in their charge from sexual predators. The church has not.

Which is a point Pat Buchanan, a traditional Catholic, made in his article, "Time to Clean House in the Catholic Church."
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:25
If you don't understand what I said, it's okay for you to say so. Claiming that my meaning is the opposite of what I say and then nodding in agreement is silly. And Pascal's first name was "Blaise", not Paul.

I understand what you said. I don't think you read my earlier messages very carefully. I excerpted a passage from Belloc's book, quoting Blaise Pascal and his "wager" theory, than opposing Blaise Pascal's theory with the words of St. Paul. You wrote, "...then that time he's wasted "believing" is time that could have been better spent on something real. " Which was exactly St. Paul's point and why I said that you agreed with him. You don't agree with Blaise Pascal on this point, do you?
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:18
"What part of "all" do you not understand? I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you are trying to divert the discussion to etymology because you cannot refute the basic concepts presented. Why should I help?

So, a person who enters into a discussion with you has to accept your etymology and your parameters? Nice world if you can get it.
[Verified Sim 2] Sim 2
In Response To Ya'll
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:12
Did it ever occur to anyone God knew "Everything" that was going to happen and planned accordingly.

Why was Abraham chosen???

Because looking down through time God could see that Abraham's decendents in every generation would serve him, therefore his "Covenant" with Abraham wasn't due to "predestination", but "Foreknowledge".

The "covenant" could easily have been made with someone else, "IF" their descendants had met God's requirements.

Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:10
Marriage is not logical. It is instinctual.

It's not logical if you understand the Internal Revenue Code.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:07
"You can try to quibble on what the definitions mean, but all you are doing is saying He does not have the attributes granted him by the myth-writers...

Not really, I am just saying He has an attribute or two you leave out. He is beyond the limits of our ability to understand Him and He is not circumscribed by the limits of our ability to define Him.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:06
Marriage is not logical. It is instinctual.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:05
His conclusions are reached on irrefutable logic.

What logical but unrealistic conclustions about marriage has your son drawn?
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:05
. But, never having actually been all-powerful is a huge impediment to understanding it.

Only if you have an imagination limited by knowledge that understanding the term will cause conflict with preconceived notions.

What part of "all" do you not understand? I understand it perfectly. I also understand that you are trying to divert the discussion to etymology because you cannot refute the basic concepts presented. Why should I help?
[first] [prev] [next] [post]
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 15:56:50 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)


[home] [vip] [post] [first] [prev] [next]
MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 15:00
In other words, although your ideas are quite logical and sensible, it is from your perspective that they are. I have a 22 year old son who is very smart (150+ IQ) and is engaged and he has a view of marriage that is unfortunately very unrealistic. He has studied it and really thought about it quite a bit, but he is wrong. But, from his perspective, you can totally see why he thinks himself to be right. His conclusions are reached on irrefutable logic. If this, then that, etc. Only once he's married, however, will he know what marriage is like. Likewise, we can give a lot of serious thought to what it means to be all powerful, all the thought we can possibly give it. But, never having actually been all-powerful is a huge impediment to understanding it.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:56
God either does, or does not make mistakes.

God either does, or does not possess knowledge of future events.

God either does, or does not possess the power to implement Her will.

You can try to quibble on what the definitions mean, but all you are doing is saying He does not have the attributes granted him by the myth-writers, and you're trying to say it in such a way to appear as if you are not saying it.

Why is that?
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:52
You write,"Because a "perfect" God makes no mistakes.
An "all-knowing" God knows the consequences of the actions It takes.
And an "all-powerful" God makes things happen the way He wants them to."

Of course, all of this hinges on what you and I might understand and agree all of these things mean. Yet, never having been all-powerful, how can we define it? We can only define it from the outside looking in. Or, take anything you are now but once were not in life? Did you really know beforehand what it was like to be married and exercise the responsibilities of marriage? Or, how can we know what it's like to live the life of another? I'm quite sure you'd deeply resent it if another person presumed to know what your life is really like.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:43
3) Take away "perfect". God has the power to do what He wishes, and has the "omnisciece" to know what his power will do, but He still makes mistakes. Which means He lacks the power to enforce His Omniscience, which means He lacks Omnipotence.

No. You cannot pull one of the three legs off and have what Christianity recognizes as God, and if the Christian God exists, the Christian presumption of freewill is void.

The basic paradox of Christianity. Since paradoxes do not exist in nature, God does not exist. And wishful thinking cannot alter this.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:42
1) Take away "omnipotent", and God can be a creative experimenter who does not have complete control of Her creation. But if "perfect" is retained in this scenario, God cannot have expectations of how the Creation turns out, which voids "omniscient".

2) Take away "omniscience", and God is a Creatrix with all power, but who does not know what his creation will do. Which calls into question the attribute "perfect", since not having knowledge of consequences by definition implies that some consequences will be not what one wishes.

[Verified ~Inquisitive~] ~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:41
God is perfect in Love; always present, aware and understanding to those who have faith, and hope of things to come. :)

Nice chattin' hope your family is doing fine.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:33
Because a "perfect" God makes no mistakes.
An "all-knowing" God knows the consequences of the actions It takes.
And an "all-powerful" God makes things happen the way He wants them to.

And in order for Adolph Hitler (or name your favorite historical figure) to be born, God had to know exactly which egg would be present, and which one of millions of sperm would reach that egg. And She would have had to make sure that Hitler's grandfather slept with (committed fornication with) the maid on the correct night at the correct time, etc. One little mistake, and Little Adolph becomes the Catholic Priest he once wanted to be (before y'all cry, read Toland's biography, okay?)

If God has all those attributes, then there can be no freedom for the Creation.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:27
So, God is not "Perfect"? He's not "Omniscient"? And She's not "Omnipotent"? That's a novel idea. Sounds like Bill Clinton could be God.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:26
Why does it have to follow that if God has the three attributes, then man is a pre-programmed machine?
[Verified ~Inquisitive~] ~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:24
I'll remove all 3.

Faith, Love, and Hope is what God is all about. Those 3 issues are the legs of that so called tripod. :)
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:16
Nope. You can't be, unless you take out a leg of the tripod, as I said. Which one will you pull on?
[Verified ~Inquisitive~] ~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:12
I'm not difficult, either..and am correct. :)
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:09
Well, if She exists, then you don't have any choice in the matter.

I'm not difficult, just correct.
[Verified ~Inquisitive~] ~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 14:05
He exists, Basil, and has shown me His love and mercy, patience, and forgiveness..all of which I'm unworthy of, and turned my life around.

I have searched everywhere looking for answers I couldn't find, until I came back to the very place my questions began..back to God, and His word.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:56
So what are you saying? We have no choice in anything in this life? You choose not to believe there's a heavenly God, is that not a choice you made?

Choice exists, the God you pretend exists doesn't. You choose to pretend. Therefore your God cannot exist.

Which of the three attributes would you like to remove to make your God possible?
[Verified ~Inquisitive~] ~Inquisitive~
In Response To Gerry/TMS/Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:41
Hi, Gerry! Afternoon to you too. :)

TMS:Choice is only possible if freewill actually exists.

So what are you saying? We have no choice in anything in this life? You choose not to believe there's a heavenly God, is that not a choice you made?

Ctaj: as you will note, I said (try too) yes, there are many times I have failed as a Christian..actually, unworthy of being called a Christian. I know, now, the closer my relationship with God is, the less I fall of the wagon..persay.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:34
I would say, however, that considering that both "Atlas Shrugged" and "Genesis" are creative works of the human imagination, that it doesn't really matter.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:32
Ask Ctaj. Personally, I've never been able to read the entire 120 page John Galt Speech, and have no idea what you are talking about.
[Verified GerryB.] GerryB.
In Response To Inquistive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:32
Good morning. It has been a while since you posted here. Welcome back.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:32
So, in John Galt's speech, when he calls man a robot in the Garden of Eden, how is it explained that the robot ends up a man?

We're talking about fiction, Murray. Poetic license is allowed.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:30
Everyone has the choice, (freewill) to believe in God or not. If one chooses to believe, then freewill is no longer important. We choose to do that which is righteous (try daily) in His eyes.

Don't be absurd. Believers fall of the Wagon of Righteousness every day. Don't they?
[Verified GerryB.] GerryB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:30
RE: "If God is perfect (error-free), if God is omniscient (all-knowing), and if God is omnipotent (all-powerfull), then Man is a pre-programmed machine following pre-established paths and He has no choice whatsoever in what He does."

That is not true. A perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God created man to be perfect. He gave that creation the free will to decide if he was going to love and follow God's plan. Man strayed from the path of righteousness. This brought sin into that perfect world. This does not diminish the work of God in creating man as a perfect, sinless creature. It was by his own choice that man fell from grace.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:29
So, in John Galt's speech, when he calls man a robot in the Garden of Eden, how is it explained that the robot ends up a man?


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:29:54 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:28

By the way, any chance you and Stephen are the same person? I'd so no by the writing
style, but the basic attitude toward Christians seems uncannily similar. Lump then all
together and condemn the whole lot. Bigot.

Seems to me you just lumped Coinkydink together with Stephen James, and condemned them.
Bigot.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:24

You presume a person has the freewill to make the choice in the first place. You are placing
the cart before the steam roller.

Choice is only possible if freewill actually exists. That's what the word "choice" means. If your
God truly exists with all the attributes I've defined, you have no choices, regardless of how you
might feel about it.

GerryB.
In Response To RonB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:24

RE: "I'm sure that's true, saints are very rare, especially in the world today."

I would guess then that you don't use the word "saints" in the same way in which Paul used it is
his epistles to the various first century Churches as in Ephesians, Philippians and 1 and 2
Corinthians. IE: "1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at
Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:"
Ephesians 1:1(KJV). Paul considered all Christians to be "saints." The Roman Catholic Church
idea of sainthood being something which is conferred by the hierarchy did not come into being
for a few centuries later when the RC Church was founded. Yes, the number of true saints in
the world is growing on a regular basis.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:22

If God is perfect (error-free), if God is omniscient (all-knowing), and if God is omnipotent
(all-powerfull), then Man is a pre-programmed machine following pre-established paths and
He has no choice whatsoever in what He does.

Only if God is not perfect, or not omniscient, or not omnipotent, can Man be free.

And pulling one of the legs off the tripod topples Christian mythology.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:19

Everyone has the choice, (freewill) to believe in God or not. If one chooses to believe, then
freewill is no longer important. We choose to do that which is righteous (try daily) in His eyes.

When you married, did you still have freewill to do whatever you wanted? Or did you respect
your wife enough to give up past liberties that were permissible as a single man.

Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:17

So, the robot became a man because the robot maker programmed him to do so? Is that what
you're saying?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:10

"Sad or not, most of the doctrines that Acnr or Tamarisk posts are the same as the ones
espoused here...they are ruder, but about the same brand of Christian as far as I can see.
You could all be going to the same church, except for Dori, who is Catholic. It would be
hard to recognise ACNR in his sunday suit singing in the pew next to you."

Thanks for posting this, Jeanie. It clears up a lot of questions in my mind about you. By the
way, any chance you and Stephen are the same person? I'd so no by the writing style, but the
basic attitude toward Christians seems uncannily similar. Lump then all together and condemn
the whole lot. Bigot.

Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:59

IF man was a robot in the Garden of Eden, how was he able to make a decision apart
from the agency of his robotic control?

Why are you saying he made a decision? It's part of the programming, of course. After all,
God knows everything, and therefore God knew that Adam would follow the little head, not
the big one.

Because God made him that way. To believe in God is to deny of Freewill.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:57

IF man was a robot in the Garden of Eden, how was he able to make a decision apart from
the agency of his robotic control?

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:52

was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his
Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man

No Ctaj, these "virtues" required to live are not mans sin. They are the necessities by which
man needed to survive because of sin.

Why do you keep assuming people who believe in God/Christ, don't think?

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:50

That is "either/or" reasoning which is illogical

Actually, the hard definition of "OR", along with "AND", and "NOT" form the basis of
computer programs. Correct use of "OR" is essential for today's society, and it is entirely
logical.

God either exists, or She does not. No middle ground is possible.

If God exists, then He either does, or does not, give a fig about us.

If what the Bible claims for Jesus is true, then people who disbelieve have something to lose.

If what the Bible claims for Jesus is false, then people who believe are wasting their time.

It's that simple, and why you people took offense at statements logically derived and easily
followed is mystifying.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:44

Be careful, dear... you're trying to think. You could go to hell for that.

No, what Pascal's Wager said was that if you believe and you're wrong, you sacrifice nothing.
That's wrong, as I have shown.

It has nothing to do with the notion of a zero sum game.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:44

"Whew!!! I had this awful image of a baby with it's head stuck in a paint can or sitting in the
corner licking a paintbrush... ;-) " Yeah, that's what Dori was thinking too, I guess...LOL

*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:38

"For people who live with the idea that Armageddon will begin in their lifetime, what is the
point in trying to save anything? To them, there never is going to be a "next generation" to save
anything for...we are all soon to die at the hands of God and the world remade, so lets drain
this planet... " Yes, that is exactly why a lot of Christians are so anti-environmental. They
practically make a religion of using it all up...but I do wonder why so many Christians are so
prosperity oriented and pray for money, try to get ahead by using up the Earth's wealth...do
they think they can take it with them?

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:35

That is "either/or" reasoning which is illogical. Kinda like those who think there's xxx number of
dollars to go around so if you have xx dollars and I only have x you have too much and have to
split that extra x with me. The fact that we could both attain xx dollars is beyond their
comprehension.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:27

"Do you really think Dori, Robin, Kim, and I are like ACNR? He's attacked us a lot more than
he has you. Have you seen the posts at his forum directed at Dori lately? To have you
compare us to him after knowing us all these years really saddens me. I thought you knew us
better than that." Sad or not, most of the doctrines that Acnr or Tamarisk posts are the same
as the ones espoused here...they are ruder, but about the same brand of Christian as far as I
can see. You could all be going to the same church, except for Dori, who is Catholic. It would
be hard to recognise ACNR in his sunday suit singing in the pew next to you... ;)

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray/RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:25

"Thinking is not an automatic process. A man can choose to think or to let his mind
stagnate, or he can choose actively to turn against his intelligence, to evade his
knowledge, to subvert his reason. If he refuses to think, he courts disaster: he cannot with
impunity reject his means of perceiving reality."

And this, man's mind, is what Pascal overlooks when he says we sacrifice nothing when we
choose to believe the irrational.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murry/RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:23

“Man’s mind,” states John Galt, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged, "is his basic tool of survival.
Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is
given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must
know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of
food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch — or build a cyclotron — without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." [more]

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:20

"Oh, the other "b" was for bulbous, not blue." Too bad, I thought blue would have been much
more interesting...blue is such a nice color, don't you think? :)

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:13

Since when do robots make decisions apart from that or who which robotically controls them?

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:41

"It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his
errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that
robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without
love - he was not man.

Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These
virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they
charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
Ayn Rand, from John Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:40

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man
acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the
fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the
knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread
by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he
acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason,
morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. [cont'd]

`Ctaj
In Response To correction
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:35

"...but if I disbelieve and I'm wrong, I lose my immortal soul."

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:33

Yes, it was Pascal's Wager that I had in mind when I spoke of the false dichotomy. His
reaoning was, "If I believe and I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I disbelieve and I lose nothing, I
lose my immortal soul."

The flaw in this false dichotomy lies in the assumption that one loses nothing when one
sacrifices the integrity of his mind.

Murray
In Response To All
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:07

What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the current church sexual abuse scandal?
The Boy Scouts have had aggressive policies in force to protect children in their charge from
sexual predators. The church has not.

What do the Boy Scouts and these churches have in common? They both have had to endure
intense media scrutiny and heavy, unfavorable media coverage, but for completely opposite
reasons. The Scouts were taken to task for adopting strong measures to prevent sexual
predators from having access to children. The church is being taken to task for not adopting
strong measures to prevent sexual predators from having access to children.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:27:59 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 5:35

And of course, this statement is false. If the alleged "Christian Revelation" is false, ...

Which, of course, was the point I was making by quoting St. Paul -- with whom you agree.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Friday April 26, 2002 at 4:37

If the Christian revelation be not true, I lose nothing by accepting it. If it be true, I gain
everything by accepting it.

And of course, this statement is false. If the alleged "Christian Revelation" is false, and a person
spends time believing it to be true, and acting as if it were true, then that time he's wasted
"believing" is time that could have been better spent on something real.

All recovering alcoholics regret the time wasted in the bottle. Because they were pursuing
something not real.

Stephen James
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:41

"I'm sure that's true, saints are very rare, especially in the world today."

Yes, I believe they always are rare. Of course I also believe quite strongly that a saint does not
have to carry the Bible in hand and the message of Jesus on his/her lips in order to be a saint.

Stephen James
In Response To GerryB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:38

"What do you expect? Start being polite and others will be polite to you."

Why should I be polite to a group whose history shows they have been being impolite to
others for 2000 years? Everytime you tell someone who does not hold your beliefs that their
beliefs are wrong or evil or damning to the eternal soul you reach the absolute heights of
impoliteness. I have every right in this country to toss it back in your face any damn time I
wish. You NEVER care about my feelings when you speak of God...why should I care about
yours Gerry? Why? Why? Why?

Stephen James
In Response To GerryB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:36

"Yet you moan bitterly about how we attack everyone."

Moan? Nah, grunt is more like it...but what would you prefer Gerry? I suppose I could attack
everyone like you/many Christians do...Gays will burn! Mormons are Demons! Muslims are
Evil! Jews betrayed God! Quakers are Witches! New Agers will suffer eternal torment!

Nahhh I think I will stick to just attacking one group, lots less people I have to hate. Unlike
you, I don't have some looney book I can use to justify hating the majority of the worlds
population.

Stephen James
In Response To GerryB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:34

"you have done nothing but complain about Christians and Christian ideals."

Yep,lots to complain about.

"You have never shown one small bit of friendliness to or for Christians."

Is it really my problem that some people cannot tell the difference between attacking a religion
and attacking a person?

There are posters here who claim their religion is the Absolute Truth and have a wish for all of
Mankind to accept it as such. I believe I can show reasonable cause to doubt the assertions of
the Christian religion. Why do you have such a problem with that?

I'll tell you why IMO...it's because you are taking my attacks on your religion as attacks on
you personally. Again, not my problem, not my worry. It's up to you to learn how to see the
separation.

RonB
In Response To On the Fall of Man
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:17

I've typed in an excerpt from an old Catholic book, contrasting the Catholic and Protestant
views concerning the fall -- it may explain why we disagree so much here. (Of course, few
Protestants believe as the original Protestant reformers believed -- which is something to be
thankful for.) The excerpt can be found at: Contrast between Catholic and Protestant doctrine
on the fall.

RonB
In Response To Stephen James
Friday April 26, 2002 at 3:13

I have met my share of people who called themselves "Christian", and for all their varying
degrees of differences there is always one thing that I find which they all have in
common...they are Human first and foremost, their Christianity playing second fiddle.

I'm sure that's true, saints are very rare, especially in the world today.

Stephen James
In Response To TB2
Friday April 26, 2002 at 2:53

"Christians and Pagans are one people ..."

I have met my share of people who called themselves "Christian", and for all their varying
degrees of differences there is always one thing that I find which they all have in common...they
are Human first and foremost, their Christianity playing second fiddle.

Timbuctoo
In Response To Ron B
Friday April 26, 2002 at 1:16

Ref: "Obviously not, or words mean nothing. It is true, however, that many who claim to be
Christians live as pagans." ~~~ My point, from my perspective is … We are all one people …
all the disagreement is just so much irrelevant sibling rivalry … :)

dori
In Response To Hi Ron
Friday April 26, 2002 at 1:04

Heading off to bed, but just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your two rooms... The True
Church for the fellowship and the Anti-Venom for the hilarity of your pointing out the foibles of
our demented friends. Kudos! And goodnight! God Bless!

RonB
In Response To Goodnight
Friday April 26, 2002 at 1:02

Goodnight. May God with all of good will.

RonB
In Response To TB2
Friday April 26, 2002 at 1:01

Christians and Pagans are one people ...

Obviously not, or words mean nothing. It is true, however, that many who claim to be
Christians live as pagans.

RonB
In Response To Best Bet (part 2)
Friday April 26, 2002 at 0:59

If the Christian revelation be not true, I lose nothing by accepting it. If it be true, I gain
everything by accepting it. As against this, I for my part will at once advance a certain
sentence of St. Paul's, to the effect that if we are wrong in our choice of the Christian
revelation, then we are "of all men the most misreble."

Pretty much covers it for me. I don't "bet" on my Faith -- I know it is true.

But, what do you think, was it a Slow Venom Day? ;)

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 0:54

That 83% Christian number is based on a false dichotomy, of course. The way the bet is
couched, "believing" is a one-way bet; there's no penalty for being wrong, as there
supposedly is for disbelieving.

Funny you should bring this "best bet" theory up. I was just reading about its origin in one of
Hailaire Belloc's books, Character's of the Reformation.

From the book:

Two of his [Blaise Pascal's] ideas at least were profound and of high value...One of these
was the somewhat whimsical but arresting conception of the "wager." It is not a rational
conception, but it is caculated to make the skeptic think. It amounts virtually to this:...
(cont.)

Timbuctoo
In Response To The Philosophers
Friday April 26, 2002 at 0:13

Christians and Pagans are one people ...

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 23:53

The facts belie your assertion. Most Americans Say They're Christian . You comprise 83%
of our population, while 52% of the rest of the world is non-Christian. Yet, we're the
country with supposedly declining moral values.

Just because they say so, doesn't make it so. Any country that condones abortion is not
Christian. Our country is pagan in everything but name.

RonB
In Response To Stephen James
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 23:49

I truly believe we would be in no different of a position than any of the countries which
still base many of their political policies and laws on religious beliefs and practices...that
position being, mostly poor and uneducated, just like it was for many people in the middle
ages under strict Christian/Catholic rule.

Well, first off, Catholic England, before the so-called "reformation," was not poor or
uneducated. It wasn't until Henry VIII and his greedy mob stole Church property that pauper
laws had to be passed in England. But, for a Christian, poverty, makes the attainment of
heaven easier than does wealth. And I would much rather stand with the poor of Ireland in the
17th Century, than the wealthy of industrial country of England.

GerryB.
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 23:34

I'm out of here. Good night.

GerryB.
In Response To Stephen
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 23:33

From the first moment that you showed up here you have done nothing but complain about
Christians and Christian ideals. You have never shown one small bit of friendliness to or for
Christians. Yet you moan bitterly about how we attack everyone. What do you expect? Start
being polite and others will be polite to you.

dori
In Response To Well for crying out loud!
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 22:48

I figured SOMEONE would have posted by now and scrolled that last one off here... grin.

Ten Megaton Solution
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 18:22

"bulbuous"...better than "bloated", "blooming", "bulging", "bathtub", "bagg", "ballooning", "blue
whale", "blowing", or "bulky".

dori
In Response To Coinky
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 18:08

Words mean things, so if you say the baby and I have a room to paint, I assume you're taking
the baby in that room, plopping it in a baby walker or infant seat and getting out the ol' brush n'
paint can.

Oh, the other "b" was for bulbous, not blue.

Sim 2
In Response To Ya'll
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 17:08

Well Shucks, If'n I can't pick a fight, I'm going to bed, 2 am is just a couple of hours after
midnight ya know, don't ya???

Keep buying those GM Vans, you've got them working "Sat"; and so am I.

Maybe, I can sneek a peek back in sometime this weekend.

If'n I can't, just do the best ya can without me, I know it's hard and hurts, but that's "life". LOL

SYT GLW atrdh JKG.

Sim 2
In Response To Ya'll
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 16:40

I'd shore wood like to buy some people for what they know then sell them for what they
"think" they know, Wheee, Doggies, I'd be "RICH".

Do ya seepost there wood be enough money in the world to purchase them???


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 11:26:00 04/26/02 Fri

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Stephen James
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 16:33

"Hope you enjoy the company of ACNR, Stephen and the other bashers."

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to
cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Isn't it about time for you to leave us a link to a Muslim bashing site?

Ten Megaton Solution
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 16:14

Certainly my behaviors follow predictable paths. No quest for truth is random. And unlike
religionists, I make no pretense about finding an Absolute Final Truth, and thus I cannot stop
seeking.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 15:36

Because your behavior falls inside of predictable parameters, maybe? And yours doesn't?

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 15:18

How do you know what you claim is "truth" is truth?

Because your behavior falls inside of predictable parameters, maybe?

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 15:14

Yes, when the truth hurts, say goodbye to the soothsayer. That's the usual way. What an
asinine statement. How do you know what you claim is "truth" is truth? We just happen to
disagree and IMO there's nothing more to talk about...you believe what you want and I'll stick
to mine...that's all I was saying.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 15:02

Yes, when the truth hurts, say goodbye to the soothsayer. That's the usual way. Some genius
said:

The problem with any of the "book religions" is that once the reader of the book
convinces himself that he's found the truth, he stops looking and actively rejects greater
truths if they contradict what he thinks the book says.

Whoever he may have been.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 15:00

Well, if that's what you think I can only say I've enjoyed reading your posts in the past and
respect your engineering/scientific knowledge but it's time to bid you a fond adieu. Hope you
enjoy the company of ACNR, Stephen and the other bashers.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:49

As for the show, the few times I've seen it I've noticed they tend to avoid the explanation to
promote unsound ideas.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:47

Because he says he is, just like you do. You included all of us when you added that
statement.

Yes. Of course. Because you to can only claim to be Christian, and can offer no proof of
greater weight than ACNR.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:45

Because he says he is, just like you do. You included all of us when you added that
statement.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:42

You know I'm not a scientist and a lot of that scientific stuff goes over my head and I'm the
first one to admit it. My question to you was did you ever watch that show and if you had seen
it. I think you would have found it very interesting and I expect a lot of the questions you are
asking me were probably answered. Actually, I was hoping you had seen it because I know
you could have explained it better than my bumbling attempts...after all, what do you expect
from an ossifed brain?

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:41

Only the God that doesn't exist knows if ACNR is as Christian, less Christian, or more
Christian than anyone else. The only data we have is that he claims to be. That's all I'm saying.

In my own personal opinion, ACNR belongs in the mental ward of a third world hospital.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:37

Yeah, right! Tell it to your dear friend ACNR. He's as Christian as anyone else.

How do I know this, you ask? Because he says he is, just like you do.

Do you really think Dori, Robin, Kim, and I are like ACNR? He's attacked us a lot more than
he has you. Have you seen the posts at his forum directed at Dori lately? To have you
compare us to him after knowing us all these years really saddens me. I thought you knew us
better than that.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:36

The earth is approximately 4500 million years old. The oceans floors are nowhere older than
about 200 million years or so. Ergo, any geysers noted on the ocean floor today did not exist
back when the oceans were flooded.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:36

A couple of weeks ago there was a scientist on there who had spent years researching this
and he had reached the conclusion that there were/are numerous geysers in the ocean
floor and they had all erupted at the same time flooding the earth.

How many hundreds of millions of years before man made his appearance was that?

Murray
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:34

Well, duh, Stephen. I think it's fair to say that if dog lovers just simply stick to loving dogs,
they wouldn't have gone off to persecute people and convert them at knife point or whatever.
The problems arise when the "club" becomes the focus. Don't put me in no "family" with
people like that. Anybody can call themselves a Christian or be called one. Even Ctaj calls
himself one in the sense that Thomas Jefferson did. Are you also putting him in with the abusive
crowd? He even quoted Scripture today. You even do sometimes. It doesn't make someone a
"thumper" just because they do that. I would just ask that you be more discriminate. If you
can't or won't, fine. I can deal with it either way.

Connie
In Response To TMS
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:27

"Look at all those that think a global flood happened, for example." Do you ever watch
"Encounters with the Unexplained? A couple of weeks ago there was a scientist on there who
had spent years researching this and he had reached the conclusion that there were/are
numerous geysers in the ocean floor and they had all erupted at the same time flooding the
earth. Went into great detail about how these eruptions caused many of the mountainous chains
we now see and also many of the details of the ocean floor itself, including undersea rivers and
channels. Very interesting!

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:20

I read your analogy...not one mention of what the views of Dog Haters were I see. You can
separate yourself from Christians you don't approve of all you like, but yer still a member of
the family as long as you thump the book and expect me to praise Jesus, or love a smelly dog,
just because you do.

That dog tries to crap in my yard...an I am gonna shoot him. (with a bb gun of course) :-)

`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:19

The way I see it is that God created every good thing to eat...it's all right here on the Earth
that he gave us.

Then He must've made everything bad to eat, as well. You know what they say. If God had
intended man to eat fish, He wouldn't have made cows so easy to catch.


[ Edit | View ]

[ Main index ] [ Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.