rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/26/84)
>>My, you must be in on something that the rest of the world isn't. I have >>no complaint if these are your own beliefs, but to make a statement that >>this is FACT is going just a little too far! Not all the world accepts >>these facts, and I see no reason they should. These are beliefs, not >>facts. Each person has their own beliefs. Facts are undeniable truths. >>The two are not the same, and I don't see any reason to try to say that >>ones own beliefs are factual, except to simply better his argument. [SEFTON] > They are facts. Just because your belief system may tell you that they are > not does not change the fact that they are. If we go by your system of > thinking, nothing can be considered a fact. Nothing is undeniable. [NICHOLS] This brings me right back to the claim I have been making in this newsgroup for some time now. Since a more rational belief system might admit that nothing is undeniable (or totally knowable), should we assume that there MUST be some thing that does have ultimate undeniable knowledge? Or is this just what some would LIKE TO BELIEVE? As Ken says, "Just because your belief system may tell you that they are." On the other hand, could it be that just because Ken's belief system DOES tell him that they ARE facts, does this mean that indeed they are? Remember what the basis of Ken's belief system is. > There is only one God. The system of this world has made you beleive there > are many, and in this belief, that there are many roads to paradise. > However, if we take the view that there are many Gods, I do have a reason why > you should believe this one over any others. Has any other God on record > ever: > 1. Taken on human flesh > 2. Came to live on this earth like a man, yet keep all > His godly attributes under submission. > 3. Died to save His creation from eternal destruction, and > give them a relationship with Himself. > 4. Rose from the dead, and now lives. I can think of many religions that have claimed similar (or equivalent) things. Why are your claims correct, Ken, while the others' claims are not? > Who has told you that there is no need to be saved. This world that is under > the dominion of Satan has told you this. On the other hand, who has told you that there IS a need to be saved? This world that is under the dominion of religion (i.e., Ken's environment which is under the domain of long term religious conditioning) has said this. Who is right? Is the answer obvious? Why is it obvious? > No, perfection makes God right. God is also perfect, are you? I've talked on this point as well. Define god (a being you have no reason to believe does exist) as perfect (or any other characteristics YOU would wish him to have) and use that as justification for any add-on beliefs. > Most christians have become afraid that they will offend some people with the > truth of sin and God's anger against it. However, the bible says that the > gospel will offend some people. There is nothing wrong with preaching > against the evil of sin and the holiness of God. If you are offended by my > writting, you are offended by the holiness of God. (I'm not saying I am > God's perfect spokesman or anything like that here. All christians are to > be the spokepersons of the truth about God.) I am offended by your writing, but only in the sense that you seek to spread a belief system (one that even many Christians in this newsgroup have labelled as repugnant---although all it is is the basis of Christianity taken to incredible extremes) which is riddled with presumption based on what you would want to believe, and with (yes) ignorance. I can only hope that the writings of more thoughtful people in this newsgroup show enough of the flaws in your thinking to those who might otherwise be swayed towards a wishful-thinking belief system (and into the fray of moral imposition thrust upon us by the religious right). The holiness of god has nothing to do with your writing. It has a lot more to do with the intransigence of your image of god. You know, I've often talked about wishful thinking as the basis of religion, and in fact I'm guilty of it myself right now. I really wish there was a god who would show Ken Nichols how self-directed and presumptive his own image of god really is. Funny, though, I take the fact that this hasn't happened to be near absolute proof of the non-existence of god---would an all-powerful and hopefully benevolent god let Ken suffer in his delusions? If not, then why hasn't he/it done so? (I say "near absolute", but it isn't even nearly near absolute. As I've asked before, why would an entity that sees all space and time at once be interested in or even aware of some insignificant beings (they don't think they're insignificant----anthropocentrism!) on an obscure planet?) > I will continue to defend that which I have written to anyone who asks. Also funny: Ken, you failed to answer my last letter in our ongoing correspondence prior to your rebuttal to the Maroney article. You failed to respond to my 300 odd (very odd) lines in rebuttal to your rebuttal. (I realize that that may be a matter of time and volume.) I've also noticed that you've failed to "defend" that which you have written when others have rebutted with questions that you have been unable to answer, and that your "defenses" have mostly consisted of "It *IS* true!" rather than substantive discussion to further your claims. Take this as a personal invitation to defend what you've said against my rebuttals to you. "To anyone who asks", you say. I'm asking. I have been asking. And I will continue to ask. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr