hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/28/85)
______________________________________________________________________ > { From: arndt@lymph.DEC } > > "By the way, where does it say in the bible that we have free > will", asks Keith Doyle. > > Memories of childhood (being beat over the head with a bible > perhaps?), gas, or maybe boredom prompts Keith to ask another > silly question of Christians in the belief that he is making a > point. > > Either Keith has never read the bible or he doesn't really mean > his question to be taken seriously - but asks it merely as the > affectation of an anti-Christian crank. I simply cannot understand why you spend three paragraphs of our valuable reading time just spilling out rhetoric/insult. Count your lines ... 37 of them (blank lines and header not included). Only the following five have any relevance to your point. The rest is trash. > Both the Old Testament and the New call on man to make a choice, > "Choose you this day whom you will serve", "We would rather obey > God than man", - an idea quite meaningless if there is no will > involved. Christians may differ among themselves as to the exact > description of that will but it's existence is clear. Typical of your all of your posts, you lash out at others then jump back behind your Bible for support. Since you hold on so strongly to your book of fairy tales, how about some support for it? I am talking about nothing less than evidence for its statements. If "Choose you this day whom you will serve" makes no sense without free will, then "Go onto the ends of the earth" makes no sense without a flat earth. Where's your evidence, Ken? Or are you just whistlin' dixie? Here's the rest of your article. The sarcasm proves nothing. You have once again helped firmly establish your lack of any serious knowledge and discussion capability. > Does Keith have his head up a P.E.T. scanner? Nothin' here but > us chemicals? Look, you can see a certain section of my brain > fry as I write these thoughts, in COLOR, with graphics (that's > it, it's REAL!) no less. Hmmmmm. Must be the chemicals CAUSING > the 'thoughts' of course - cause we can make things happen by > chemicals you see. "Better living through . . . " > > And since, Golly Mr. Wizzard, everybody just 'knows' that nothing > else but the material world 'exists', since we've never seen any > physical evidence for anything else, it HAS to be the brain caus- > ing 'thoughts, actions, emotions, etc.' and not a silly notion > like the brain being the vehicle through which a 'being' > expresses himself. Pull the spark plug wires and the car won't > start so what starts the car has gotta be the car, eh? > > But perhaps Keith doesn't mean to imply all that and has his head > up somethig else! > > Oh dear, was that polite - I forget. At least it's a handy point > of reply without having to deal with my point. > > Treat my posting with chemotherapy! Just send the right mix of > chemicals. > > CRANKS OF THE WORLD UNITE! So I can save on ammo. > > Keep chargin' > > Ken Arndt > > "One in the brain is worth ten in the chest." ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }