Tom wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113485105.424666.171730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Tom wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113175959.055322.35560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Tom wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113102539.592962.284770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

(snip)

(snip)

"Inform" implies information. And we know where that information

comes from.

Our upbrining, instincts, education, experience, and the context

of

circumstance.

That's where I am disagreeing with you. I am suggesting that after

you

factor out all the of above factors thre is *still* a spiritual

core

that makes choices from the menu that the above factors set.

And just what does that spiritual core use to guide its decisions

because

what ever it is, it continues to choose make the wrong decision on

occasion.

IE its not really free from the the constraints of sin.

I think the phrase "constraints" of sin is a little misleading, as it
implies you and I are innocent victims of our sinfulness. I would say
rather we are the guilty perpetrators of our sinfulness.

If we have a spiritual core, then the ghost in the machine is not

choosing

to do the right thing appartently. Either the ghost is making

mistakes or

the ghost doesn't know that it is choosing the wrong thing.

Otherwise

the

ghost would choose the right thing. No matter how you phrase it,

we

are not

outside of the sum total influences acting on us.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the worng thing" in this context. Do

you

mean *morally* wrong? Why do you think it obvious that if our souls
*knew* the right thing we would chose it?

I think that if we know what is right *and* we are free to choose it,

then

we *will always* choose it. But that is not the case as you know.

Why would our knowing what's morally right imply we would freely choose
to *do* what's morally right? Were you talking about *moral* rightness?

(snip)

If we have free will in heaven, we are no further ahead than the

arch

angels

who apparently bailed once they got tired of the whole affair, and

if

we

don't have free will, then apparently not haveing free will is ok

with god

and that's how he should have made us in the first place.

Why do you think that what was OK for the archangels would be OK

with

us?

I don't really. I am suggesting that if the archangels bailed, then

that

hints at the fact that we may in fact have free will in heaven.

Th eonly way I can see a hint of that is if you presuppose that we are
relevantly like the archangels. Why think that?

In ordinary experience different creatures often need different
things. Why assume that's not the case here?

I agree. My contention is the use of the words *free will* I agree we

have a

will but it is not in fact free from anything. IE it is not separated

from

our sum total existinence or outside of our physical reality so long

as our

physical body is the host to our brain. Not that I believe there is

any real

separation.

I'd out it this way: we are free from compulsion when we do what we do
because we wanted to, and we wanted to because we are what we are, not
what we were caused by something else--not even the laws of physics--to
be.

2. If suppose heaven can on;y be experiences if a person freely
embraces Christ. In that case God might not have been able to

arrange

it so that his free creatures who haven;t yet freely embraced

Christ

were born in heaven.

Lost me there when you said that God might not have been able to

do

something.

I wasn't proposing a limt on God's power. I was pointing out that

not

even an omnipotent being can do contradictions.

Now there is a limitation of god if ever I saw one. God is in fact

the

ultimate example of contradiction.

I don't see how that's a limit on God's power. Supposing that it is a
fact that yuo can't experience heaven unless you freely embrace Christ
then the proposal (that God create you in heaven before you've freely
embraced Christ) is a contradiction.

Making a contradicting statement
isn't saying anything and does't *count* as something God cannot do.

It would be
contradictory to suggest that God make it so that people could be

in

heaven without the necessary ingredient of being in heaven.

Necessary ingredient, according to whom?

Im not sure what you mean by "according to whom"? Are you asking me
"who says it's necessary?"?.

(snip0

Another not bad idea that I happen to like is that we fade
away like every other living thing and all of our molecules return

to

the

earth whence they came. The more illusion there is in life, the

scarier

death is.

I'm not sure why you *like* that (I used to like it myself when I

was

an atheist though, but now I think that's because it helped me hang

on

to my atheism). But liking an idea isn't really the point I'd say.

Correct. Until I am dead it is an article of faith. Something revered

to the

faithful apparently.

If you are talking about *your* "not bad idea" then it has an
interesting quality; You'll never know if it's true, because if it's
true you won't be alive to verify it. That is indeed an article of
faith and will alwasy be unless you find out you're wrong.

(snip0

Only problem is that apparently every non christian and

non-subscriber

misses the boat. Thats a failure rate that precludes any all

knowing

god to

be at the center of the scheme IMO.

Why? If God *optimizes things then how was that an error?

What is optimal about sin, death, pain, disease, suffering, evil and

the

lot? If we live in a naturalistic world, then it all fits. If there

is

apparently a god at the center the world is truly broken.

I didn't say that sin adn death was optimal. I suggested that God's
allowing us the freedom to cause it might be optimal, that it might
have been less desriable had God eliminated the freedom that enables us
to sin.

The Christian
could say that those who miss the boat are tragically lost but that

the

result where God did differently would have been less satisfactory

than

the actual because not enough people would have "made it to the

boat".

Don't understand, sorry.

My apologies. What I was trying to say was that a Christian could say
that had God done things differently there would have been fewer folks
make it to heaven.

(snip)

Assuming you have read the bible and don't in real life believe in

ghosts,

spirits, flying horses, winged humans, serpants that can talk, red

men with

horns, and all manner of superstitous hallucinations, then I don't
understand your question.

I think that *some* of the bible (the Creation story for exzmple)

is

mythological and the point wasn't to make a historical claim.

Why stop there? Have you read Leviticus?

Isn't that the law chapter? What myths are you referring to here?

On the
other hand, I do believe the miracles of Christ, and I do believe

that

Christ saves our souls and makes it possible for us to get to

heaven.

Did you know that pagan gods that precede Jesus changed water into

wine at

weddings? Does that surprise you?

I've read the "copy cat savior" arguments before so I'm not realy
surprised by your statement. I am not a scholar but I've read counter
arguments from people who seem to know abuot the subject who say that
the "copy cat" argument is guilty of reading Christian categories and
theoology *into* the myths, thus exagerating the degree of similarity.
Since I am not an expert, I'll concede for the sake of discussion the
claims you state.

here is another example

Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd

of

about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis

(pagan god)

, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig

to

which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then

chased

over a chasm and killed.

This seems like one of those exagerated similarity things to me; lots
of societies had animal sacrifice and this just seems like another
example. The jesus version doesn't have the pigs taking away anyones
sins.

John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon

Peter

to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a

sacred

number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan

Archimedes as

"the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like

shape

using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early

Christians as

their main symbol.

So probably there were people in the area who considered the number 153
to be somehow significant spiritually or philosophically. In that case,
it seems plausible to me that (a) Jesus did in fact enable Peter to
catch a bunch of fish and (b) the author of John might have included
the specific number 153 in the story to communicate the significance of
the event. John seems to be a mystical book, so using the vocabulary of
the Greek mystics doesn't seem like a stretch.

Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12

disciples

before his death

THis also seems like one of thsoe exagerated similarities. Lots of
people celebrate goodbyes with meals.

It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was pregnant

for

only seven months. This legend is preserved in the Gospel of the

Hebrews.

Although this gospel was widely used by early Christians, it was

never

accepted into the official canon. Semele, mother of Dionysus, was

also

believed to have had a 7 month pregnancy.

The problem is (as you note below) the Gospel of the Hebrews isn't
canonical, so the folks who collected together the bible didn't
consider it authentic scripture. There were a nunber of heresies among
early Christians, addressing that problem was one of the Apostle Paul's
main jobs.

How come the ancient world had the monopoly on miracles? They just

don't

seem to happen any more. Hint, ignorance and wishfull thinking

coupled with

a fertile and impressionable imagination.

Here you seem to be conceding for the sake of argument that the
biblical miracles actually happened, for the purpose of showing a
problem with the biblical claims. I'm taking your objection that way at
least. My response? The bible covers a period of thousands of years so
I would suggest that the miracle density wasn't all that high even back
then. I see no reason to think the miracle density is less now than it
was in ancient times. If a miracle is necessary to accomplish a goal
then I'd say God does it, but big miracles are apparently very rare.

On theother hand, I'd consider it a continued act of divine
intervention when God maintains the laws of nature so that the sun
rises every day.

Nothing in that conflicts with science

of course it does, there is no scientific evidence for the existence

of god,

if you understand how science works.

There is no scientific evidence for or against God.

--there is no scientific evidence

against those claims nor is their scientific reason to think they
couldn't have occurred

of course there is, common sense and every day life tells us that we

don't

rise from the dead and we cannot make multiple loaves and fishes from

one

loaf and a fish.

*We* can't. But neither science nor common sense tells us that God
doesn't exist and if God--the creator and sustainer of the
universe--does exist he can surely do loaves and fishes and revivifying
corpses.

It is a myth. If you read the same story in any other book,
you would not believe it. --so I'd say my question is a good one.

I probably wou'dn't believe it. But it wouldn't say that the people who
did believe it were stupid.

I disagree.

Why think
that one would have to forego his intelligence to believe the

spiritual

claims of the bible?

Because they are fantastic and supernatural perhaps? Because they are

just a

story with no proof?

Where do you get that one has to forego his intellgence to believe in
the supernatural? Story with no proof? I guess that depends on what you
mean by proof. I'd say we Christians have ample reason to believe.

And...what part of the bible talks about winged humans or red men

with

horns?

Ok I got carried away. But the flying horses are there i think

I don't remember them. I do remember a song by the 60's group the Irish
Rivers about how there are no unicirns anymore because they wouldn't go
on th Ark, but unicirns don't have wings do they?