pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/17/85)
Rick, I'm getting very confused, Rick. You said that we are not talking about the same God, that the Damager-God doesn't have the properties of the one you believe in. I asked why you thought we were talking about different concepts when we weren't. You BELIEVE that the God you whosrhip has the properties you claim that He has. In fact, your only basis for believing this is that He told you that He has those powers. I never said He wasn't powerful. As a matter of fact, He is very powerful. But the contradictions rampant throughout His stories tell me that He either doesn't exist or that He is a lying pig. We can rule out the former because that is not a possibility worth discussing, knowing as we do that there is some sort of willful force out there through our own perceptions. So we are left with the truth of the matter: God is a disgusting evil pig filth lying bastard out to deceive us. You also say that the vision of God I talk about ``describe[s] what the Bible says about Satan to the letter.'' Of course it does! God and Satan are one and the same. As you say, ``the great deceiver, intent on destroying people, trying to get people to worship Him.'' Well, Rick, THAT describes the Damager-God to the letter, doesn't it? You simply choose to believe God's stories that Satan is some ``other'' entity, but not Him. He is the great and good God, not an evil pig monster, right? How do we know this? The answer is simple: BECAUSE HE SAYS SO! And you believe Him! I don't know whether or not you have children, but have you ever seen a child who has an imaginary playmate? Have you ever seen such a child blame the imaginary playmate when he does something bad? Children don't get away with such things. Yet God does. I have answered more than once the question of why God must have been formed along with the universe instead of being some external creator of that universe. If you are talking about the ultimate universe of universes which God is supposed to have created, then God would exist outside the ultimate universe of universes. This would mean that the ultimate universe of universes is NOT the ultimate universe of universes, because the one God resides in would have that honor. So how was THAT universe created? It seems the best you can do is have a God who was created along with the universe, perhaps as a by-product of that creation. In accordance with the maxim ``absolute power corrupts absolutely,'' God, who has ultimate power within the scope of this universe (after its creation and the establishment of physical laws within it) has become corrupted, and hideously evil. You ask how we might know whether the scientists who derive the natural laws aren't just stooges of God. Isn't it obvious that they are? What information is discovered by scientists? Knowledge about how to cure cancer or Aids, or how to solve the world's hunger and overpopulation problems? Or knowledge of how to make weapons of awesome destruction to destroy the world? Scientists' quest for knowledge is tainted by God's interference in the process of exploration and experimentation, certainly for the purpose of increasing the amount of evil in the world. Yes, Rick, your needs for these beliefs in a loving father image of God may very well be very real. But that points again to the evil of God deliberately encouraging such a need in people, so that we will look to Him and offer Him whorship. You say ``don't just go back to your statement that God and Satan are the same thing.'' Why do you forbid that? Why are you so unwilling to accept that? If it is so obvious to you that what I describe is depicted in the Bible under the name Satan, why do you so offhandedly reject the concept that they are one and the same, as with the child and his imaginary playmate? Are you afraid that it might be true? Despite what you claim, the only evidence that Jesus was what you say he was is found in the word of God, and that is like accepting Richard Nixon's account of the Watergate years. Josh MacDowell's book only proves my point: if you accept apriori the assumption that God is good, all else follows. His book does just that and nothing more. But WHY do that when there is evidence to the contrary? I am also not taken to being told I didn't answer a question when in fact I did. You asked if I would put up with an excuse from a child of the form ``Sorry, I didn't clean my room because the evil, damager-God made me be bad.'' I answered that question. But allow me to answer again in another form. If YOUR child has grown up to be bad, a delinquent, how could this happen? Are people naturally evil? Or did some bad influence (perhaps even from you) make him what he has become? God works in mysterious ways, they say. They're not so mysterious when you think about them. Perhaps YOU get close to some children for an extended period of time and see how they are influenced to become ``evil''. I asked you the following: >> You say ``doesn't it seem kind of convenient that everything wrong >> gets blamed on God and the good stuff comes only when God is too lazy to >> really screw us?'' Yet you would claim that everything good in this world >> should be credited to God while the ``bad stuff'' is our fault? Tell me, >> Rick, which sounds more truthful to you? And you responded: > You've already heard my answer. A rhetorical answer, expecting > something you know I'm not going to grant you doesn't make a whole lot > of sense in terms of trying to prove your point. In fact, Rick, I think you yourself have proven my point. You are ``not going to grant [me]'' any recognition of the two-sidedness of this coin. I think that, in a very sad way, bespeaks your biases that are your own downfall in attempting to learn the truth about God. I find it horrifically shocking that you claim that Abraham's being ordered to bring his son to sacrifice him to God is analogous to ``greater love hath no man...'' The example I gave IS something terribly evil, and it is YOU who is trying to twist it into something good just so that you can preserve your belief that God is good. Then you say that it wasn't God destroying masses of people at His whim, it was the Jews ``defending'' themselves. Of course, they have had to (and still have to) defend themselves against such attacks. But why ignore the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What evil did they perform? Or the people of Jericho, or ALL the native inhabitants of Caanan who were evicted or killed at God's whim to make room for people He wanted to live there (and for what purpose?). Was this self-defense by the Jews, or a perfect example of the evils of God. You say ``God makes it clear that you do what He says and more often than not, survival depended on it.'' If you lived in a nation where the leader acted the same way towards you, you would rightly call him evil. You also quote ``And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, be cast into hell.'' Think about what stumbling means; it simply means not obeying the will of God! Why not say ``Fuck you, God, I will live my own life, I am not here to be your lackey and your toy. You are powerful and you may try to hurt me, but I will retain my dignity. I owe nothing to you, I expect nothing from you. Go away and leave us all alone.'' (A maltheist's ``prayer'') When I answered your question about who inspired such horrors as the Inquisition by saying ``Who else but God?'' you responded by saying that (again) you simply cannot accept that answer. It is your refusal to accept that answer that is your personal downfall. If the destruction of masses of people at the whim of God is not inspiration for the tortures and horrors that followed in His name, pray tell, what is? Furthermore, you ignored completely the points I made about the fate God has in store for those who do try to preach ``real human love.'' I mentioned Gandhi and King, and your response to that again skirted the issues. What are you afraid of? You claim I didn't want to respond to your quotes, so you offered a few more. Don't you recognize the absurdity of that? You say that you could never agree with my position about God being evil because of your assumptions. But then you demand that I give consideration to passages from ``the word of God'' when I don't believe that God was telling the truth in even a remote way when He wrote those words. I think I have good reason behind my belief about the lies of God, based on the rampant contradictions found in His words. What is your reason for simply refusing to accept my concept about God? Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/29/85)
Paul, Before I get started, let me try to make a point or two. First of all we really seem to be missing eachother in terms of the questions we feel we're asking and the answers we're getting and giving. The only way I could think of to make this a little easier on ourselves is to have a follow up article that has the questions that I've been trying to ask spelled out as clearly as possible with spaces provided for your answers. Forgive me if you feel like you've been beating your same answers into the ground, but either I'm thick headed or I'm just missing what you're saying but somehow we both still feel that questions have gone unanswered so maybe this will alleviate that problem. One other point that I think I've noticed lately is that you seem to feel that because you make your assertions more often or more vehemently that yours are either truer or less assumptive than mine. Since both of us have fairly defined positions in terms of overall scope, saying back and forth our contradictory assertions doesn't accomplish anything. Where we have lots of room to discuss is in the areas that we both feel are irrational or inconsistent in the other persons beliefs. More likely than not you won't get through to me (or I to you) by repeating that God is a (long string of evil adjectives) but if you can show me that some part of my set of beliefs doesn't hold, then you've got an inroad. That was my idea in talking about the Bible and the damager-God, because to me it seems illogical and inconsistent to have an evil God inspire a book that tells people how to live peacefully, and joyfully. Anyhow, onto to the response. > In fact, your only basis for believing > this is that He told you that He has those powers. We'll start here. How do you know that that is my only basis? I believe that God is revealed through His creation. I've seen testimony of God in my own life and in friend's life through things like answered prayers, changes that have taken place and even miracles and prophecys (the church I'm at is strongly charismatic). Paul in Romans says what I feel pretty clearly, "For that which is known about God is evident with them for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, his divine nature and eternal power have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:22 (roughly) > You also say that the vision of God I talk about ``describe[s] what > the Bible says about Satan to the letter.'' Of course it does! God and Satan > are one and the same. As you say, ``the great deceiver, intent on destroying > people, trying to get people to worship Him.'' Well, Rick, THAT describes the > Damager-God to the letter, doesn't it? You simply choose to believe God's > stories that Satan is some ``other'' entity, but not Him. This is what I mean about our foundational differences and this also shows somewhat what I mean about you seeming to feel that your position is intrinsically stronger than mine. You simply choose to believe that this damager-God is not Satan. There's no difference in terms of who's assuming and who's not assuming, it's just a difference of assumptions. simple: BECAUSE HE SAYS SO! And you believe Him! I don't know whether or not you have children, but have you ever seen a child who has an imaginary playmate? Have you ever seen such a child blame the imaginary playmate when he does something bad? Children don't get away with such things. Yet God does. > I have answered more than once the question of why God must have > been formed along with the universe instead of being some external creator > of that universe. If you are talking about the ultimate universe of universes > which God is supposed to have created, then God would exist outside the > ultimate universe of universes. This would mean that the ultimate universe > of universes is NOT the ultimate universe of universes, because the one God > resides in would have that honor. So how was THAT universe created? This whole proof rests on one major assumption that is completely subjective and unprovable and to me isn't even likely. Why must God reside in a universe? When you start talking about eternal deities, we're dealing with a presence in time that is nothing like we understand it. Also, omnipresence implies a way of dealing with space that we don't understand. Why should the God of the Bible (who claims to be all of these things) be bound to the restrictions and rules that the Bible claims He created? God does not need a place to live nor does the problem of time effect Him or relate to Him the way it does to us. God ceated time and space. Granted these are my assumptions, but why should a deity that is supposedly responsible for creating everything be bound inside of His creation? That's what I mean about your assumption not seeming practical. > You ask how we might know whether the scientists who derive the natural > laws aren't just stooges of God. Isn't it obvious that they are? Nope, not obvious at all, especially when a large number of the 16th through 19th century scientists felt that they were discovering the secrets of the world that God had created (and not your damager God). > What information is discovered by scientists? Knowledge about how to cure > Aids, or how to solve the world's hunger and overpopulation problems? Or > knowledge of how to make weapons of awesome destruction to destroy the world? Does the background in Physics needed to understand lasers make one evil? Or is it the specific formulas and calculations that produce the actual beam of light? Or is it just knowledge in general is evil? Where does this evil actually reside? Is the knowledge of optics evil when it's in a laser but friendly and nice when it's in an x-ray? Is the knowledge of biochemistry evil when it's used to produce germ warfare but friendly when it produces vaccines and cures to diseases (why didn't you list Polio, Bubonic Plague, Small Pox as diseases instead of two that haven't been cured). Forgive me if it's trite and cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. And it's the same way with science. Knowledge is neutral. There is no such thing as an evil fact, theory or hypoothesis. > Why do you so off-handedly reject the concept that they are one and the same Why do you so off-handedly reject my claims. Just because yoou make points like this more often than I have done in the past (and would like to do in the future) doesn't mean that you're assertions are less founded on assumptions than mine. > Despite what you claim, the only evidence that Jesus was what you say > he was is found in the word of God, and that is like accepting Richard Nixon's > account of the Watergate years. Josh MacDowell's book only proves my point: > if you accept apriori the assumption that God is good, all else follows. Sorry if this appears harsh, but this is blatantly wrong. Josh McDowell's book cites numerous extra-Biblical sources in support of Christ's existence and claims. There are the reports of Jewish historians of the time, Roman censuses, letters between Roman officials, official documents and court records discussing Christ and Paul. If you give any credit to history whatsoever in terms of accuracy or validity, Christ (maybe only second to the apostle Paul) is the best substantiated figure of antiquity. > I am also not taken to being told I didn't answer a question when > in fact I did. Ok, sorry if I've missed it but I couldn't find anything that made sense too me as an answer to this question. Sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but it's still a question I'm confused to see how you can answer in terms of what you believe. > If YOUR child has grown up to be bad, a delinquent, how could this > happen? Are people naturally evil? Or did some bad influence (perhaps even > from you) make him what he has become? You asked earlier if I had any children. I'm only 22 so I have no kids of my own but I've been working with high schoool kids for the last three years now, counseling and teaching in both churches and public schools. I've also taught in both public and private elementary schools (mainly sixth grade) so I've had a decent background in dealing with kids and with the causes/sources of their problems. I completley agree that many kids have been 'pushed' in the wrong direction by the bad influences you refer to above. But what about the kids out of the good home with loving parents, material security, good teachers, good friends, nice siblings? I've seen lots of kids who simply chose to rebel, against anything they could find to rebel against. If we have the free will to fight against the damager-God, why don't we have the free will to choose to be bad? Side note. I'm not quite sure what you mean with the example of the child and the imaginary playmate. Just having finished a few courses in child development (I'm a psychology major at UCSD) we dealt with a number of case studies of 'imaginary playmates' so I'm interested to hear what you feel that represents or shows about your point. It's not that you were so unclear, but it was just ambiguous enough so that I'd rather ask you to clarify rather than answer something that you might not be saying. > In fact, Rick, I think you yourself have proven my point. You are > ``not going to grant [me]'' any recognition of the two-sidedness of this > coin. I think that, in a very sad way, bespeaks your biases that are your own > downfall in attempting to learn the truth about God. Is that really true? Why would I be discussing this issue if I didn't feel that somewhere we had enough common ground to be able to talk on. Granted I have my own, different set of assumptions, but so do you. In the example of the Bible and the damager-God, I completely stepped into your set of assumptions and tried to show how the Bible we have today (it's still the same Bible) does not make sense coming from a God you describe. That's not giving you any credit? If you mean do I accept your assumptions, no. But if we can't discuss something without having identical beliefs this is going to be a quiet world. > shocking that you claim that Abraham's being ordered to bring his son to > sacrifice him to God is analogous to ``greater love hath no man...'' The > example I gave IS something terribly evil, and it is YOU who is trying > to twist it into something good just so that you can preserve your belief > that God is good. We've got a small (maybe big) problem here. I never used that example. The example I did use was Christ coming to die for our sins which I still maintain is the greatest act of love ever demonstrated on this earth (as Paul claims in Romans 5:8). We had a similar problem before with the discussion about Satan and the millenium. If you want to hammer on me, great, but if possible show my quote so you can be sure that you've got the right person and right topic. Then you say that it wasn't God destroying masses of people at His whim, it was the Jews ``defending'' themselves. Of course, they have had to (and still have to) defend themselves against such attacks. But why ignore the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What evil did they perform? Forgive the short answer, but read Genesis 19. Sodom's sin was very clear. > Or the people of Jericho, or ALL the inhabitants of Caanan who were evicted > or killed at God's whim to make room for people He wanted to live there (and > for what purpose?). Was this self-defense by the Jews, or a perfect example of > the evils of God. Much better question. And one that I freely admit that I don't have an answer for but this question also shows just how willing we both are tomake assumptions. Since the Bible doesn't say they did anything bad, does that mean they didn't? The Bible doesn't say anything about the people inside Canan other than they were huge. You assume that it's God being evil and kicking out an innocent bystander who never did anything wrong and there's absolutely no support for such an assumption. I assume the people were treated justly because God claims to deal justly and in all the other recorded cases God has dealt justly. > I mentioned Gandhi and King, and your > response to that again skirted the issues. What are you so afraid of? I agreed with you before and I'll agree with you again. King and Ghandi in many ways both preached for human love. But you yourself gave the definition of sin. Not dealing with the world, not going to church, not memorizing Bible stories, but in relating to and obeying God. And I can't speak for Ghandi or King. From what little I know, King was a minister and believed in Christ. What I know about Ghandi (mostly from the movie) shows me that he was more of an ecollectic and a politician than he was whole heartedly concerned with what God wanted. Granted you might not feel that means anything, but the Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6) Maybe you can tell me, what am I afraid of? > Think about what stumbling means; it simply means not > obeying the will of God! Completely true. That is the entire definition of sin, disobeying God. > Why not say ``Fuck you, God, I will live my own life, > I am not here to be your lackey and your toy. You are powerful and you may try > to hurt me, but I will retain my dignity. I owe nothing to you, I expect > nothing from you. Go away and leave us all alone.'' (A maltheist's ``prayer'') > I guess I'm glad that you're willing to stand on your convictions instead of just mushing around on the fence, but, to the letter you've described the one thing that God has asked us not to do. C.S. Lewis, in a book entitled "The Great Divorce" explained the way God will deal with mankind. "There are two types of people in this world. Those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says, 'thy will be done'". You've made it very clear which type you are and all I can say outside of trying to dissuade you and show you that I belive you're wrong is that God will answer you're prayer; completely, totally and forever. More so than you could ever imagine. If you see at all what I'm saying, read The Great Divorce. It gives a clear picture of exactly what the choice you talk about entails. Rick Frey "For a time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will gather to themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (II Timothy 4:3,4)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
> More likely than not you won't > get through to me (or I to you) by repeating that God is a (long string of > evil adjectives) but if you can show me that some part of my set of beliefs > doesn't hold, then you've got an inroad. That was my idea in talking about > the Bible and the damager-God, because to me it seems illogical and > inconsistent to have an evil God inspire a book that tells people how to live > peacefully, and joyfully. [FREY] But clearly that book DOESN'T tell people how to do those things, because those who've read the book have persisted throughout modern history to pillage, persecute, slaughter, torture, etc. (isn't that enough?) those who wouldn't follow their "peaceful joyful" way! Maybe Paul's right about the intent of the author. :-? (Maybe he included hidden subliminal [Satanic?] messages in the Bible!!!! This would explain where religious leaders originally got the idea of looking for such messages in other works...) In any case, it seems your assertion is without merit. >> In fact, your only basis for believing >> this is that He told you that He has those powers. > We'll start here. How do you know that that is my only basis? I believe > that God is revealed through His creation. I've seen testimony of God in my > own life and in friend's life through things like answered prayers, changes > that have taken place and even miracles and prophecys (the church I'm at is > strongly charismatic). And the only way you can believe that testimony as being evidence of the existence of god is to believe in your presumption about his existence! > Paul in Romans says what I feel pretty clearly, "For > that which is known about God is evident with them for God made it evident > to them. For since the creation of the world, his divine nature and eternal > power have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so > that they are without excuse." Romans 1:22 (roughly) And Richard Nixon said in his account of the Watergate years "I Am Not a Crook", "It was John Dean all along, we could have done it, but it would be wrong, I should have burned the tapes..." Another example of your accepting the source as being unbiased. How can you assume that god is unbiased about itself? ("Because he's god, he wouldn't do that, he's perfect and good..." "AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?" "Because he's god, he wouldn't do that, he's perfect and good..." ...) (Side note to Paul Zimmerman: thank you for the excellent Nixon example; wish I'd thought of it) > Does the background in Physics needed to understand lasers make one evil? Or > is it the specific formulas and calculations that produce the actual beam > of light? Or is it just knowledge in general is evil? Where does this evil > actually reside? Is the knowledge of optics evil when it's in a laser but > friendly and nice when it's in an x-ray? Is the knowledge of biochemistry > Forgive me if it's trite and cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill > people. And it's the same way with science. Knowledge is neutral. There is > no such thing as an evil fact, theory or hypoothesis. Tell this to certain people in net.philosophy... >> Why do you so off-handedly reject the concept that they are one and the same > Why do you so off-handedly reject my claims. Just because yoou make points > like this more often than I have done in the past (and would like to do in > the future) doesn't mean that you're assertions are less founded on > assumptions than mine. Rick, I wonder if you recognize the consequences of your admission that you and Paul both have belief systems based on equal numbers of assumptions. >> Despite what you claim, the only evidence that Jesus was what you say he was >> is found in the word of God, and that is like accepting Richard Nixon's >> account of the Watergate years. Josh MacDowell's book only proves my point: >> if you accept apriori the assumption that God is good, all else follows. > Sorry if this appears harsh, but this is blatantly wrong. Josh McDowell's > book cites numerous extra-Biblical sources in support of Christ's existence > and claims. There are the reports of Jewish historians of the time, Roman > censuses, letters between Roman officials, official documents and court > records discussing Christ and Paul. If you give any credit to history > whatsoever in terms of accuracy or validity, Christ (maybe only second to > the apostle Paul) is the best substantiated figure of antiquity. All those things prove is the EXISTENCE of a person, not his claims (or yours) to his divinity. Paul is right on the mark: McDowell is an extremist presumptivist. >> If YOUR child has grown up to be bad, a delinquent, how could this >> happen? Are people naturally evil? Or did some bad influence (perhaps even >> from you) make him what he has become? > You asked earlier if I had any children. I'm only 22 so I have no kids of my > own but I've been working with high schoool kids for the last three years > now, counseling and teaching in both churches and public schools. I've also > taught in both public and private elementary schools (mainly sixth grade) so > I've had a decent background in dealing with kids and with the causes/sources > of their problems. I completley agree that many kids have been 'pushed' in > the wrong direction by the bad influences you refer to above. But what > about the kids out of the good home with loving parents, material security, > good teachers, good friends, nice siblings? I've seen lots of kids who > simply chose to rebel, against anything they could find to rebel against. People don't "simply choose" out of thin air to do particular things. They choose things based on material causes, the result of their upbringing and experiences. > If we have the free will to fight against the damager-God, why don't we have > the free will to choose to be bad? Who said we did? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (11/07/85)
In article <2027@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > But clearly that book DOESN'T tell people how to do those things, because > those who've read the book have persisted throughout modern history to > pillage, persecute, slaughter, torture, etc. (isn't that enough?) those > who wouldn't follow their "peaceful joyful" way! I wouldn't expect you to make this type of criticism having seen your postings get taken out of context and twisted till people will accuse you of saying all sorts of things that you didn't say. Who's at fault? You or the people who take you out of context? You usually complain about how they blew it when they do that so I'll go ahead and assume the same for the Bible. Just because people have tried to use it to justify all sorts of wrotten behaviors, DOES NOT mean that that's what the Bible says. I've posted quotes till you guys are sick of them, but quit trying to figue out what's inside a book by the reaction of people who claim to have read it. > > > We'll start here. How do you know that that is my only basis? I believe > > that God is revealed through His creation. I've seen testimony of God in my > > own life and in friend's life through things like answered prayers, changes > > that have taken place and even miracles and prophecys (the church I'm at is > > strongly charismatic). > > And the only way you can believe that testimony as being evidence of the > existence of god is to believe in your presumption about his existence! > That's not true, but the problem is partly my fault. I didn't make the dis- tinction clear enough between me seeing things that (I feel) can have no other explanation than God and me believing in God because of them. I am in no way convinced by arguments of evolutionists (and yes I read net.origins) and even evolutionary theory makes a major assumption (about the original cause) that for me is just too difficult to swallow). About the miracles and prophecies, I've seen people pray for things that are so specific and the answer has come so quickly that coincedence would be more difficult to believe than God acting. You're right in some ways that I come with a innitial belief, but often (don't tell my Pastor this) but it's a very skeptical openness to the question, "God, if you're there, prove it to me." And while I haven't heard voices or been blinded on the Damascus road, I've seen alot of stuff that's hard to explain any other way. Not that it can't be, but that it is. > > Paul in Romans says what I feel pretty clearly, "For > > that which is known about God is evident with them for God made it evident > > to them. For since the creation of the world, his divine nature and eternal > > power have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so > > that they are without excuse." Romans 1:22 (roughly) > > And Richard Nixon said in his account of the Watergate years "I Am Not a > Crook", "It was John Dean all along, we could have done it, but it would > be wrong, I should have burned the tapes..." Another example of your accepting > the source as being unbiased. How can you assume that god is unbiased about > itself? ("Because he's god, he wouldn't do that, he's perfect and good..." If you notice my wording, you'll see that I agree with Paul. That does not mean that Paul came up with my idea for me or that I belive it because Paul belives it, I said that Paul says what I feel pretty clearly. You use quotes from other people. That doesn't mean that you belive in being an indvidual because E.E. Cummings told you to, you just like the way he said it. Here I'm not assuming anything about God or the Bible. There's simply a quote in it that makes alot of sense to me. We've talked about kids and punishment and when I see people doing 'evil' things, I more often than not see a deliberate willfullness, just like Paul talks about. This is part of the support that I've seen for this quote, outside of and disregarding the 'assumption' that it must be true. > >> There is no such thing as an evil fact, theory or hypothesis. > > Tell this to certain people in net.philosophy... > But I said it here. What's wrong with it? If I was forced to try to guess what you would say, I'd hope that you agree with me. Being a guardian for rational thought and the advancements of science, it would seem inconsistent (with what little I know of you) for you to disagree. What do you say on this? > > > Why do you so off-handedly reject my claims. Just because you make points > > like this more often than I have done in the past (and would like to do in > > the future) doesn't mean that you're assertions are less ** founded on ** > > assumptions than mine. > > Rick, I wonder if you recognize the consequences of your admission that you > and Paul both have belief systems based on equal numbers of assumptions. > Read once more. I added emphasis to the "founded on" that maybe I should have made clearer originally. Number of and founded on are not the same creatures. > > > Sorry if this appears harsh, but this is blatantly wrong. Josh McDowell's > > book cites numerous extra-Biblical sources in support of Christ's existence > > and claims. There are the reports of Jewish historians of the time, Roman > > censuses, letters between Roman officials, official documents and court > > records discussing Christ and Paul. If you give any credit to history > > whatsoever in terms of accuracy or validity, Christ (maybe only second to > > the apostle Paul) is the best substantiated figure of antiquity. > > All those things prove is the EXISTENCE of a person, not his claims (or yours) > to his divinity. Paul is right on the mark: McDowell is an extremist > presumptivist. > Wow, everyone likes shooting down McDowell when it at least appears that they've never read what he's written. McDowell goes through painfully and tries to prove Christ's (and the Bible's) claim that He rose from the dead (using all sorts of extra-Biblical writings and also logical arguing). That would at least make Him special if not divine. McDowell also gives lots of historical evidence that a figure, referred to as Jesus (or the Christ) went around doing miracles (and so did Paul and the other apostles) and they to a smaller extent are also substantiated. McDowell has a huge section supporting Christ's claim to be the Messiah by going through all the Old Testament phrophecies and showing how He fulfilled them. McDowell deals specifically with Christ's claims and no he does not just use the Bible. Stop using the Nixon example. It would be great if it applied completely, but it doesn't. > > People don't "simply choose" out of thin air to do particular things. They > choose things based on material causes, the result of their upbringing and > experiences. > I'm not denying that there are models, examples and influences pushing kids in both directions. But I just simply and completely disagree that all behavior is determined by the factors you list above. As people we have the ability to take those forces into our minds, away from much (not all) of the socialized world and refigure what these mean to us and what our behaviors should be. Human interaction can not be defined as a simple action-reaction pair as many bahavioral psychologists would have us believe. > > If we have the free will to fight against the damager-God, why don't we have > > the free will to choose to be bad? > > Who said we did? > -- Paul did. I asked him about people fighting back against the damager God and he backed off from all people being dupes to allow either some special few or maybe everyone (I'm not sure which) to be able to choose and innitiate action against the damager God. If Paul said it, I believe it and that's the end of it! :-) Rick Frey