pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) (02/03/91)
Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous idiots.......
joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) (02/06/91)
> pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) writes: > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but > you're all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his > right mind would believe in all this religion nonsense? If > only you could look objectivly at your beliefs for once, > you'd realise that you're all superstitous idiots....... So what is it that you want here? Do you just wish to call us names? Or do you want to talk about something specific? I'm sure there are people who would be interested in hearing why you feel this way. Including myself. I also would be interested in knowing whether you posted this to soc.religion.* or just s.r.c. And whether you meant that men are really the only ones subject to this analysis. Jody Richardson | "If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you joseph@cs.albany.edu | get Kafka dreams." -- Hobbes
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) (02/08/91)
> From: pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) > Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian > Subject: Don't mean to be rude, but....... > Date: 3 Feb 91 04:31:25 GMT > Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. > > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're > all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would > believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly > at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous > idiots....... Interesting, Caroline. Espeically coming from an e-mail address like "Trinity College." I encourage you (as an amateur astronomer and Christian) to go outside tonite and look up. What you will see is the Milky Way (galaxy) consisting of over a 100 million stars like our Sun, and 100's of billions galaxies (like the Milky Way) in the observable Universe. When the Voyager I spacecraft reached the orbit of Pluto, it looked back and tried to photograph the earth. From that relatively small distance, the earth was only 12% of one picture element, and thus didn't even show up in the photograph. I find it impossible to ponder that, and not see the hand of God. Regards, -Joe -- ----- Joe Pillera ERIM Research Scientist Image Processing Systems Division pillera@etd4260a.erim.org P.O. Box 8618 (313) 994-1200 x2754 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8618 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely those of Joe Pillera, and not of ERIM or its affiliates.
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.23.31.22.1991.27628@athos.rutgers.edu>, pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) writes: > > > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're > all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would > believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly > at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous > idiots....... I have great needs that have been met by following Jesus. You're right Caroline...some(most?) of us are not in our "right minds." Jesus did not come to save the Righteous (TM) but he came for the sick and the lost. I am most thankful that I have been forgiven much and healed much. If we appear idiots, please be patient with us since many have come really far just to be where we are today. BB (akgua!rjb)
cms@gatech.edu (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.23.31.22.1991.27628@athos.rutgers.edu>, pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) writes: > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're > all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would > believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly > at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous > idiots....... Gosh, Chuck, how did this one get past you? I can understand a posting supporting the contention that there is no God and people who believe that God exists or practice their religious beliefs are stark raving mad or seriously depraved of adequate reasoning skills, however, this particular posting contained very little information concerning the author's beliefs or any statements backing up her contentions. I would request that Caroline Tisdall give us more information concerning her beliefs or lack thereof. For what reason does she decline to acknowledge the existence of God? What aspects of religion are nonsense? The beliefs from which our morality stems? Ethics? Worship? Ceremony? Our faith in the existence of an undefinable substance or element which has no mass and cannot be measured but which we extrapolate from certain knowns must exist? In her belief structure, is "luck" considered part of what she considers to be the religious experience (i.e., supersitious nonsense like rabbit's foots, four-leaf clovers, etc.)? Since I have looked rationally and realistically and objectively at my beliefs, I'd like to know if she has given her own beliefs or lack thereof similar scrutiny? Has she read Saint Thomas's proof of God's existence? Of course, in the end, dear Saint Thomas declared, "it's all straw. Burn it," believing that the revelation he had received from God was even greater than anything he had discovered via his reason. Of course, some people think he had a stroke. So, either reason is "all straw" or it helps those of us still struggling with our faith to understand our relationship to God. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Although not a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, I am: A Real Live Southern Catholic in the Anglican Communion. [I do not necessarily stop postings that I think are groundless, although at a certain point I may decide that they have so little content that they are not worth the time to read. This is a concise summary of a common atheist view of Christianity, and as such seems relevant to the subject matter of this group. The only possible grounds to reject it would be personal attack. Normally I would not allow a posting that called another member of the discussion an idiot. However it seemed unlikely to me that any of our readers would actually take personal offense at this posting. If I'm wrong, I apologize. --clh]
benning@uunet.uu.net (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.23.31.22.1991.27628@athos.rutgers.edu>, pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) writes: > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're > all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would > believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly > at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous > idiots....... Yes! I was once of the same opinion. I was so sure that these religious goofs had their heads in the sand. Superstious meat heads! One day a friend of mine (and a fellow athist) called me to tell me he had found the Lord and wanted to share this with me. You can imagine my shock. For weeks he would call and tell me how by believing in Jesus, he had been made a new man. Well I "could" hear a different tone in his voice. And I could tell there "was" the appearance of change. But really, this is just a lot of garbage right? After a few more weeks I made the decision to read this mans bible and use what I read against his claims. When he said "you need this" I would respond with "yea stupid, what about this you hypocrite..." I would read the Old testament in the mornings and the New at night. As I read, I gathered information. Four months passed, and I noticed that I no longer was reading to prove this crazy friend of mine wrong. In fact, I noticed I had a sudden change in my perspective. I now was reading the Bible because it spoke to me. I know that sounds crazy, but I found out why it is called the word of God. Some how I developed this hunger and thirst for Scripture. Finally, one night after finishing the book of John, this atheist who thought God was for fools said God I believe you are there. I believe in Jesus and the work he was sent to acomplish. If you are there, and I believe you are, come to me. Change me. That night, the Lord came to me. I have never been the same. So I say to those who were like me, watchout! The truth is available but you must search for it. Scripture says that if you search for God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, He can be found. If you think you know better, I would have you check your source. Then check mine. I'm not talking about religion. Neither does the Bible. Were talking a living relationship with the living God. Nothing else satisfies!!! May God bless all who contend against HIM, B. Benning
kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.23.31.22.1991.27628@athos.rutgers.edu> pluto@maths.tcd.ie (Caroline Tisdall) writes: > > > Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're > all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would > believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly > at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous > idiots....... Its understandable that you might find questions of "works and faith" to be quite ridiculous given your obvious world-view bias. I would reply to your polemic that if we are not in our "right mind" then men such as James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton as well many other great thinkers are equally "out of their right mind". I would ask as well on what "objective" grounds would you call religion, specifically christianity, superstitious? I would point out that objectivity is not all that it may originally seem, i.e. it rests on many a priori assumptions. Since you find Chrisitianity intellectually untenable, on what *specific* grounds do you find it so and what would you replace it with? I hope you will be patient with us as we'll be patient with you. Kevin Bowman (kbowman@eng.auburn.edu) Two Foundational Facts of Human Enlightenment: 1: There is a God 2: You are not Him
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/12/91)
In article <Feb.8.02.43.05.1991.15362@athos.rutgers.edu> pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) writes: [obnoxious and inflamitory quote deleted in good taste.] >I encourage you (as an amateur astronomer and Christian) to go outside >tonite and look up. What you will see is the Milky Way (galaxy) >consisting of over a 100 million stars like our Sun, and 100's >of billions galaxies (like the Milky Way) in the observable Universe. > >When the Voyager I spacecraft reached the orbit of Pluto, it looked >back and tried to photograph the earth. From that relatively small >distance, the earth was only 12% of one picture element, and thus >didn't even show up in the photograph. > >I find it impossible to ponder that, and not see the hand of God. An awsome sight, no doubt. That's interesting, because that is exactly the opposite reaction I had when pondering the same thing years ago. I find it difficult to imagine a god that would create such a huge cosmos with billions of universes and suns and planets and then proceed to inhabit only our relatively insignificant planet with life. I'm much more apt to believe there are other life forms out there somewhere, intelligent or not. The odds just seem to favor it. If you can so easily believe in the eternal existence of your god, why is it so difficult to imagine the eternal existence of the cosmos in one form or another? Further, the simple inability of the human mind to comprehend a phenomena does not nescesitate the hand of a superior celestial being. How long did we assume the earth was flat and the sun rotated around us and the 'stars' were suspended in ether? Given time I believe man shall reveal much more about the origins of the cosmos (if, indeed, it is not eternal in and of itself) and the development of mankind. Only time will tell... >Regards, >-Joe Jeff Lindborg Disclaimer: The U.W. doesn't really care what I say. [A couple of times in L'Engle's science fiction an angel who is dealing with humans says that they intentionally avoid encouraging humans to think about the immensity of the cosmos because people tend to be overly impressed by sheer magnitude. In L'Engle's world, there are beings on both the stellar and microscopic scale. While they are both larger and smaller than humans, this does not reflect their relative importance. --clh]
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (02/12/91)
This posting is for those who think that Christianity is merely a superstition. Some time ago I read a small book, "Who Moved The Stone", by Frank Morison. The author was from a German university famous for the Agnostics that graduated there. Frank was one of them. Instead of simply intelluctually arguing his pet theories with his friends of like mind he decided to go one step better. He set out to prove the whole story of Jesus to be a fraud. He put his analytical mind to work on the Gospels and he also studied secular literature and documents as well as what ever Jewish sourced material he could lay his hands on. He started out convinced that the story of Jesus was a fiction and so he searched the records to prove it so. What is interresting is that there are quite a number of stories of such critics of Christ who went out to the archaeolical digs and the musty archives of history who came back from their quest as Christians with a conviction of that Jesus did indeed live here as the Gospels say He did and that He is indeed divine as He claims to be. And so my challenge to you Agnostics and Aetheists: Go prove what has not yet been proved. Instead of simply hyping up your theories in the company of your budies, go out there and really dig up the evidence to prove the whole story a fraud. Really get into it and I can assure you that you will return a Christian. Stick with your parlour games and you will never know what you have missed. This is not a spectator sport for those who wish to toss tomatoes from the bleachers. You have to go dig up some real evidence one way or the other. Go for it! Dave
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/16/91)
In article <Feb.12.04.22.02.1991.13360@athos.rutgers.edu> davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: >Some time ago I read a small book, "Who Moved The Stone", by Frank >Morison. The author was from a German university famous for the >Agnostics that graduated there. Frank was one of them. Instead of >simply intelluctually arguing his pet theories with his friends of like >mind he decided to go one step better. He set out to prove the whole >story of Jesus to be a fraud. If you mean he set out to prove the Jesus did not exist, then he set out on a mission doomed from the start. There are at least two independed secular sources which mention the 'Jesus of Nazareth' (although one was altered by Christian editors and seems to try and indicate the author believed that Christ was the Messiah, which he did not). >He put his analytical mind to work on the Gospels and he also studied >secular literature and documents as well as what ever Jewish sourced >material he could lay his hands on. He started out convinced that the >story of Jesus was a fiction and so he searched the records to prove it >so. Well, the story that rose up around Jesus may quite well be fiction. But the fact that a man named Jesus existed around that time seems well accepted. That has little or nothing to do with the vilidity of Christianity, however. >What is interresting is that there are quite a number of stories of such >critics of Christ who went out to the archaeolical digs and the musty >archives of history who came back from their quest as Christians with a >conviction of that Jesus did indeed live here as the Gospels say He did and >that He is indeed divine as He claims to be. Wrong. He did indeed live at the time stipulated. The question as to the divinity of Christ cannot be answered objectively by written record or other evidence. Remember, the Gospels are biased... they were written some time after the death of Christ. The writers needed to show their audience that Christ was divine and, indeed, the Messiah. Hence, much of what is said to have happened in the Gospels (*none* of which is supported by nonChristian records apart from the mere existence of a teacher named Jesus) must be taken with a grain of salt. Keep in mind that Jesus was not unique in any way. People just like him were common around the time when he lived. Read some of the Jewish writings you refer to and you see that these other teachers had deciples (some many more than 12) and they nearly *all* perfomred healings and other wonders. In fact, it was almost a requirement to be able to heal to be considered worthy. Jesus was unique in that his diciples claimed him to be the messiah (a strange claim since the messiah was supposed to be of the Davidic line and rebuild the temple and kick some butt... i.e. get rid of the Roman empire... none of which happened). This claim, of course, required some fancy footwork in the way of "reinterpretation" of the Tanak to explain why the messiah fulfilled none of the predictions that were set out for him. >And so my challenge to you Agnostics and Aetheists: Go prove what has >not yet been proved. Instead of simply hyping up your theories in the >company of your budies, go out there and really dig up the evidence to >prove the whole story a fraud. I have no need to prove that Jesus did not exist, because I believe he did. It is up to you to prove he was the Messiah. If I said I worshiped pink elephants that lived in my yard, it would be up to me to prove they existed, not you. >Really get into it and I can assure you >that you will return a Christian. I have 'really been into it' for some time and I maintain (more so now than ever) that Christianity (and all other religions) are the product of the minds of men... nothing more. >Stick with your parlour games and you >will never know what you have missed. This is not a spectator sport for >those who wish to toss tomatoes from the bleachers. You have to go dig >up some real evidence one way or the other. > >Go for it! Went for it and found it to be wanting... >Dave Jeff Lindborg
op@bigfoot.acc.Virginia.EDU (Olaf Pors) (02/19/91)
[lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg), in the course of a discussion on evidence for Christianity, was told > >Really get into it and I can assure you > >that you will return a Christian. He responds > I have 'really been into it' for some time and I maintain (more so now than > ever) that Christianity (and all other religions) are the product of the > minds of men... nothing more. > Went for it and found it to be wanting... --clh] Hats off to Jeff Lindborg! It is unusual to hear of someone interested enough to put their time and energy where their mouth is, rather than "throwing tomatoes", perhaps out of emotional reaction and prejudicial bias. Josh McDowell also researched the historical and logical basis for the Christian faith and wrote some books about it. The reason that many controversies continue is that people look for proof, whereas it is not possible to PROVE that Jesus is/was the Messiah. Proof is obtained only by personal observation. History is not observable; it's gone. Therefore, one can only examine all the evidence left and come to the most logical conclusion. The problem is that many people stop short of finding the facts or have not looked at them objectively. You may want to read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (ISBN 0-918956-46-3, Library of Congress No. 78-75041) and/or "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, before closing out the issue. I'm glad he did the kind of research that few people attempt or finish (I certainly didn't). Another relevant thought that I don't remember as being in the first book above (I've only read the first): the Bible is often rejected as a factual document because it doesn't stand up to some intellectual analyses, so it isn't taken seriously by someone looking into the issue of Jesus as the Messiah. The Bible is picked apart for contradictions, lack of detail, etc. However, it was never written for such analysis. The gospels, for example, were written as testimonies by uneducated men. Let me attempt to clarify this thought with an analogy: Let's say my house is on fire and I am not aware of it. A stranger who happens to be uneducated and also happens to barely know English, passes by the burning house. He comes running up to me, and with bad grammar and somewhat disconnected statements, warns me of the situation. It would be unfortunate indeed for me to pick apart his grammar, and decide that his testimony is invalid. The proper action is to see for myself (proof). In the case of history, one must look at all the evidence available, but the need to do this does not invalidate the Biblical record. I hope this is of help. Olaf Pors
mvp@jack.sns.com (Mike Van Pelt) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.12.04.13.13.1991.13228@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > I find it difficult to imagine a god that would create such a huge >cosmos with billions of universes and suns and planets and then proceed >to inhabit only our relatively insignificant planet with life. > I'm much more apt to believe there are other life forms out there >somewhere, intelligent or not. What does this have to do with disproving Christianity? I've heard some people say that if life is discovered on other planets, that this will somehow disprove Christianity. (I've also heard people say that if we visit a bunch of planets and find no life, it will prove that life on Earth is just a cosmic accident. They want it both ways, you see...) But the Bible doesn't say that there isn't life on other planets. It doesn't say that there is, either. So whichever way it turns out is irrelevant as far as proving or disproving Christianity goes. C. S. Lewis wrote a very interesting essay on the subject; I believe it's in "God in the Dock." Recommended. (But then, anything by Lewis is recommended.) -- Caution: Thermostellar device. Mike Van Pelt Handle with care. Headland Technology Do not expose to first-semester (was: Video Seven) Philosophy students. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl polypropylene Henning) (02/28/91)
Steven L. Boyls writes: In response to >> Terribly sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you're >> all a pack of raving idiots! What grown man in his right mind would >> believe in all this religion nonsense? If only you could look objectivly >> at your beliefs for once, you'd realise that you're all superstitous >> idiots....... >I think this person has a problem. At first I thought their problem was >that they were terribly rude. Then I realized that they do not have Christ >in their life. I can only hope that they will continue to read this forum >and realize that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, that no man goes >to the Father except through him. Hi, Steve. While I don't think that your response was, strictly speaking, "rude", I think that the person who posted at first was not so much being rude, as trying (albeit a little crudely) to convey a sense of incredulity. The problem, I think, is not so much in the content, as the manner of expression. What I think the person was trying to convey, was a sense of the complexity of beliefs and cross-beliefs involved in the average xian sect, and astonishment at the willing credulity on the part of many xians, in accepting without a qualm things which (to a non-xian) seem to fly in the faces of good sense, and common experience. The first post was not "rude" in the motivational sense, but rude in execution. Now, while not technically rude, your response seemed to me rather patronizing in the way that the first person's (admittedly ill-phrased) ideas were written off as being of no consequence, as coming from someone "without christ in his life"; a bit presumptive about the nature and function of this forum, the natural consequence of reading which, you suggest, would be that this person would learn to confess the well-worn dogma; and a little naive, in ignoring the evidence (in the posting itself) that this person had already in fact availed himself of the opportunity of reading through the forum. C'est la vie. kph PS/ On the "I am the way" wheeze ... I'm currently in Buffalo; the "way" to Cleveland is, to take I-90 west. Can I get to Cleveland by no other "way"? -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving
ee8kag@gdt.bath.ac.uk (K A Goatman) (03/06/91)
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl polypropylene Henning) writes: > PS/ On the "I am the way" wheeze ... I'm currently in Buffalo; the "way" > to Cleveland is, to take I-90 west. > Can I get to Cleveland by no other "way"? This reminds me of a story I heard of missionary in India: He was once approached by a man who said to him, "Christian or Hindu, what's the difference? All rivers lead to the sea!" "That's true", replied the missionary. "But do all trains lead to Dehli?" I think this shows that an analogy can prove almost anything! Keith. ee8kag@gdt.bath.ac.uk