rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/04/85)
>[Ken Ardnt] > > Colin Rafferty says, "What the main problem of most Creationists have is > that they are afraid of, not their own, but mankind's mortality." > > I think that he has it backwards! > > It is precisely the 'creationist' believer in a God who has given meaning > to the dance who can bridge the existential gap created by the thought of > the collective as well as the individual death. > But why must you rely on it??? What I was trying to get at, was that it seems that none of you can find a meaning in life for yourselves. You cannot get along with the idea that everything you do on Earth is not only transitory, but meaningless to Eternity, because we simply don't belong to it. > Christ died for ALL mankind, so all have an opportunity to be saved. > That was very nice of him, but, we only think that because if He didn't, we'd all be in deep sh-t. > It's so 'modern' and 'young' and 'Rosen' to be unafraid of death, ain't it? > "Look at me with my health, youth, and low credit card balance, I'm not > afraid of death!" But that cheap untested facile nerdy statement is not > able to hold up under the years, I think. > I have never implied that I am unafraid. It's just that I don't need some superstition to alleviate my fears. The one thing that I need, when I go through life, is dignity. That includes seeing death, facing it, and accepting it when it comes, not cringing behind the safe curtain of "faith" and hoping for eternal salvation. And if there is a God and Heaven, then I see Him as reasonable, and He will understand about dignity, and won't be indignant when he sees that I don't cringe in constant fear of death. > No it's not pretty. It's a cheap dirty trick. I agree. > Even those empty phrases about 'us' carrying on are torn from view > in modern life and we realize we can loose the whole bannana! And some > nitwit stands up in the back and says "Fear not, it's natural." Like > a high fibre breakfast cereal - 'Death is the breakfast of all mankind.' > Like cuts and bruises, polio and C Interuptus are 'natural'. But are > they right, moral, the way things 'ought' to be? To say that's the way > they ARE is no answer. Unless you love 'em. > To say that it's not is to cop out. You can't take everything you don't like and say, "Well, there's a purpose to that." To say they exist and the best that we can do is postpone them, is to be rational. To say that it's any other way is unreasonable and the sign of a weak spirit. > I spell relief (from death) S C I E N C E ! Or the one I like best, > R E A S O N. > I agree. Where's the science (reason) in Creationism or any of that other hopeful whining that's you've been giving us, Ken? > If the world were to end tomorrow the Christain could still plant a tree > today! Because he has a REASON to you see. There is meaning to life. > What he does HERE and NOW has meaning into eternity. Works will be > rewarded and judged! Remember you don't get there by works! > That sounds fine and dandy, but why do you need an outside source for your meaning in life? All that I'm hearing now is wishful thinking. > Remember Bill's question: "To be or not to be?" Resist or pack it in? > No answers from Evolutionists! THEY are the ones who live on wishing > it were so! The Christian has REASONS, the historical records, and the > logic of the case and the experience, by choosing these assumptions, of > finding something that WORKS and one can LIVE with. > It seems now that you're saying the Evolutionists have no evidence to back up their arguments, and the Christians do. The only historical record I've ever heard of was the New Testament, which is pretty biased, if you ask me. Written by people who benefited a lot from the belief in it. > But he gets sillier sad to say. > > Colin says: "By believing that they were placed here, they don't > have to worry about what could destroy mankind, but Evolutionists do. The > political forces that lean toward Nuclear War are invariably Creationists: > Reagan, Faldwell (who he?), etc. Those against are invariably Evolutionists" > > Again, the major thrust of Christianity is to RESCUE mankind from > death and the results of the 'fall'. What utter twattle you spout! > But that part has nothing to do with saving the Earth, just saving humanity. If the personification of forces of evil can be destroyed by a nuclear war, what is the harm in destroying the Earth along with it. This is the idea of Armageddon, again. > My word Colin. You've got to be seven years old, in which case get off > your father's terminal before I tell him, or you are still in Public High > School and I don't hold you opinions too much against you, poor guy. > Of course, now you must revert to the good-old "try to discredit the other guy, so no one listens to the sense he makes" tactic. Just try to remember that this is a debate floor, not a kindergarten name-calling session. > Preachin' ? You bet. > Sick of it? You bet! If Ken would sit down and think about his ideas for a minute, maybe he would realize that he is only trying to find a reason not to worry about what's going to happen to him, when the end comes. But isn't that what all Creationists are doing, anyway? -------- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold, and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms and a void." -Democritus(400 B.C.)