| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeremy" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 08:27:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evidences of God - Preface |
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 10:11:22 PM |
|
|
Billy Goat wrote:
bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0310090125.1754089f@posting.google.com>...
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<mmDgb.172213$3o3.12653454@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
You won't find it. It is a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14. In
verse 12, the King James Version translates "Helel" as "Lucifer"
which is the Latin name for the planet Venus when it rises in the
morning. If you read the passage in context you will see that
the reference was to the king of Babylon (verse 4).
Looking up a concordance based on the Good News Bible (English
naturally) I find the word "Lucifer" not referenced. The passage
above as you say refers to "Day Star", with a heading before verse 3
in that chapter "Downfall of the King of Babylon".
However the passage in Isaiah is often used as an allegory referring
to the fall of Satan, who was according to church tradition the most
powerful angel of the lot before his fall, just as the king of Babylon
was the most powerful man in the region in Isaiah's time. That Satan
is able to control hell, filled with demons and people who hate him
and each other, says something about his power.
If the story of the fall of Satan/Lucifer is not contained in the Word
of God, then I have two questions:
Where did the story come from?
===>The idea of a "devil" came from Zoroastrianism.
The "fall" of the "Devil" came from a reinterpretation of
Ezekiel 28 (King of Tyre) and Isaiah 14 (King of Babylon).
Why believe it?
===>Why not?
People believe lots of weird things. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
09 Oct 2003 11:32:41 AM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
When God speaks through the Bible He does not always
intend us to take a verse merely in its literal
interpretation.
Which is a perfect excuse to take things out of context so
that you can make them say what you want. Christians are
experts at doing that. Their whole religion is founded on it.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 09:06:12 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<mmDgb.172213$3o3.12653454@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Billy Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0310070801.3b42586@posting.google.com...
bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley) wrote in message
news:<adff117.0310030536.6ebf5ce3@posting.google.com>...
A creature He had already made, Lucifer, got jealous when
he realised Man's final estate, and decided to take it out by
destroying Man as far as he could.
I'm having trouble finding the Bible verses which tell the
story
of Lucifer's jealousy, rebellion, and fall from Heaven. Which
book and chapter?
You won't find it. It is a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14. In
verse 12, the King James Version translates "Helel" as "Lucifer"
which is the Latin name for the planet Venus when it rises in the
morning. If you read the passage in context you will see that
the reference was to the king of Babylon (verse 4).
Looking up a concordance based on the Good News Bible (English
naturally) I find the word "Lucifer" not referenced. The passage
above as you say refers to "Day Star", with a heading before verse 3
in that chapter "Downfall of the King of Babylon".
However the passage in Isaiah is often used as an allegory referring
to the fall of Satan, who was according to church tradition the most
powerful angel of the lot before his fall, just as the king of Babylon
was the most powerful man in the region in Isaiah's time. That Satan
is able to control hell, filled with demons and people who hate him
and each other, says something about his power.
When God speaks through the Bible
===>What "God" speaks through the Bible?
It is ALL, 100%, the words of MEN.
HUMAN ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies.
He does not always intend us to take
a verse merely in its literal interpretation.
===>How do you know that?
Or is that just a cop-out?
He transcends the
humans who wrote the books, and is thus able to transcend the more
literal meaning they had in mind.
===>And you know that how?
Or is that just YOUR opinion, speculation and fantasy?
If you listen to yourself, you will realize how the authors
compiled in the Bible came to write their pieces.
As far as I can tell the devil's name appears to be Satan.
===>Originally, his name was ANGRA MAINYU, later
AHRIMAN. He was invented by the Persian prophet
Zarathustra and imnported into Judiasm when the Persian savior king
Cyrus, dubbed the Messiah of YHWH (See ISAIAH 45) liberated
the Jews form captivity.
But common
parlance has "the evil one", "Beelzebub", "the Destroyer", "that
murderer" etc.
===>Unlike AHURA MAZDA, who was simply equated with
and called YHWH in the Persianized Judaism, the importers could
not agree on what new name to give to that Evil Spirit of Zoroastrianism.
Thus the variety of names used.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
07 Oct 2003 10:00:38 PM |
|
|
Billy Goat wrote:
bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0310030536.6ebf5ce3@posting.google.com>...
A creature He had already made, Lucifer, got jealous when he realised
Man's final estate, and decided to take it out by destroying Man as
far as he could.
I'm having trouble finding the Bible verses which tell the story of
Lucifer's jealousy, rebellion, and fall from Heaven. Which book and
chapter?
===>See ISAIAH 14, but be sure to read the whole thing, so you will
note that "Lucifer" is the king of Babylon, not the "Satan" of Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
08 Oct 2003 05:29:17 AM |
|
|
A creature He had already made, Lucifer, got jealous when he realised Man's
final estate, and decided to take it out by destroying Man as far as he
could.
Billy Goat wrote:
I'm having trouble finding the Bible verses which tell the story of Lucifer's
jealousy, rebellion, and fall from Heaven. Which book and chapter?
"Libertarius" wrote:
===>See ISAIAH 14, but be sure to read the whole thing, so you will note that
"Lucifer" is the king of Babylon, not the "Satan" of Christianity.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
You won't find much of anything as specific as that by reading the Bible as
a plain text storybook.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
03 Oct 2003 11:11:44 AM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F7CEB3D.16A7A2E4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>He cannot "decide" to allow something else to happen other than what
he ALREADY KNOWS will happen IN ADVANCE.
He KNEW IN ADVANCE that IF he created ADAM and EVE,
and IF he placed that tree and that snake with them in the Garden,
the earthlings would disobey his warning. So, by going ahead and
making them, he created them TO FAIL!
There is an element of predestination in the Bible. The problem we
are dealing with here is an infinite mind, able to accommodate free
will from our viewpoint and predestination from His.
We do not have infinite intelligence.
===>But YOU seem to imply that YOU do, by presenting
a story YOU think explains what happened. Except that it does
not work!
For example we have a couple of
goldfish in a pond, a dog and a cat. Now the intelligence who planned
them had to allow for the common elements of a digestive system,
heart, brain, nervous system etc. all beforehand, however they
actually "arrived". In short in this colossal "mind" is the thought
the humans will need "pets" even thought "pets" are unknown in heaven.
Then He has to think about the different characteristics - a cat for
cleanliness, a dog for loyalty, a goldfish for beauty, and how He is
going to accommodate these things. All the biological and
neurological design has to be worked out beforehand, so that in the
dog's case for example we have an extremely complex animal (taking
into account all the complexities of the biochemical reactions going
on) which does relatively simple things - barks, bails up the postman
etc.
Robot engineers did not find bipedal motion easy to emulate, partly
because muscle has the advantage that power can be applied throughout
the tissue, whereas engineering designs tend to have the power applied
at the point of contact only.
So He effectively had to work out "in His Head" so to speak, a
universe in advance, and then create it, right down to details like
the flight of a housefly.
Into this He inserts an amphibious creature Man, half biological and
half spiritual.
A creature He had already made, Lucifer, got jealous when he realised
Man's final estate, and decided to take it out by destroying Man as
far as he could.
This has all been planned in advance, even the Devil's rebellion. Now
the rebellion may not be something God actively "wants", but at the
same time He cannot avoid it.
===>He could avoid it by not making such a creature!
Your story does not work! Admit it.
He knew Lucifer would rebel, but He
could not prevent it, unless He removed Lucifer's ability to rebel.
===>Why not remove his ability to rebel and prevent the series
of events he KNEW would follow?
It is a bit like chess. All the pieces are in full view of the
opposing players, and nothing is hidden except the strategy in the
opposing players' minds.
===>But to to an OMNISCIENT player NOTHING is hidden!
The bits on the board don't have much choice, although if they had
enough self determining ability to accept or refuse the player's
choice (eg. a pawn, not trusting the player, decides he will not move
forward one space), then we might begin to approach the concept.
We're dealing with an infinite mind, or rather, He is dealing with us.
===>That is a cop-out!
Like an auto manufacturer producing a car that all engineering advice
shows will be an accident ready to happen.
Except the car has no choice in the matter,
===>Nor do the creatures!
They HAD TO behave the way the "creator" had foreseen they would.
and needs a driver with
free will to carry out the circumstances of the accident.
===>That is irrelevant.
The vehicle is DESIGNED in such a way that it WILL result in
an accident, REGARDLESS of the driver.
We will, in
the end, demonstrate whether we were WILLING or not to do God's will.
I don't like it much, as I think it is unfair. However God is unfair
to many people really eg. the poor, deprived third worlder who gets
leprosy has every reason to think God has given him a raw deal. And
in terms of this worlds wealth, He has.
===>Console yourself!
There is no such "God".
Sometimes I think we need to forgive God.
===>Forgive silly ideas ABOUT "GOD"!
Purists will disagree,
saying God is holy etc. and hasn't done anything to deserve
forgiveness. Frankly I disagree - I think God has a great deal to
answer for. However if there is going to be "love" between God and
Man, then God might like to be forgiven. After all, He has to forgive
us for a lot.
===>You are talking about an imaginary being.
Maybe He really wants friends, who forgive not only their enemies, but
also Him.
Christ intimated He will be so grateful, He will serve them at the
heavenly banquet.
The whole thing has been set up so God knows who want to be His
friends, and who do not.
On things like this I sit and think.
Most times I just sit.
Bob Crowley.
===>Perhaps you need to start THINKING more! ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
04 Oct 2003 09:53:17 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F7D9FC0.15AB1EA7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>But YOU seem to imply that YOU do, by presenting
a story YOU think explains what happened. Except that it does
not work!
I'll stick by the statement that God is omniscient, although I am well
aware I am not, apart from getting tired quite easily. Whatever the
reality is behind the universe, it works quite well.
===>He could avoid it by not making such a creature!
Your story does not work! Admit it.
He could have, but He didn't. It is a bit like a Jew hauled up before
a Gestapo for questioning and probable execution. His protest "Adolf
Hitler is an evil mongrel" is correct and true. But it is also
academic. He is in the judgement seat, and is on trial for his life,
regardless of whether he thinks the set up is just or not.
He knew Lucifer would rebel, but He
could not prevent it, unless He removed Lucifer's ability to rebel.
===>Why not remove his ability to rebel and prevent the series
of events he KNEW would follow?
I don't know, but the point is that He decided to set up this
particular universe with its peculiar conditions. He probably could
have made us metabolise by sunlight and chlorophyll if He wanted, but
didn't. There were an infinite number of things He could have done,
but by setting His sights on a certain modus operandi, He had to
forego some. If you decide to build a house with a steel frame, then
you automatically forego a wooden frame.
It is a bit like chess. All the pieces are in full view of the
opposing players, and nothing is hidden except the strategy in the
opposing players' minds.
===>But to to an OMNISCIENT player NOTHING is hidden!
Only if He holds Himself back, which to seom extent I think He does.
I am amazed however that there is a spiritual war on, yet He seems to
be able to look at a person's future decisions without fail. Wars are
usually quite unpredictable in humans terms, especially for the poor
sods in the front lines.
The bits on the board don't have much choice, although if they had
enough self determining ability to accept or refuse the player's
choice (eg. a pawn, not trusting the player, decides he will not move
forward one space), then we might begin to approach the concept.
We're dealing with an infinite mind, or rather, He is dealing with us.
===>That is a cop-out!
It is a cop-out if it is not true. IF it is true, it is a mere
statement of fact.
Like an auto manufacturer producing a car that all engineering advice
shows will be an accident ready to happen.
Except the car has no choice in the matter,
===>Nor do the creatures!
They HAD TO behave the way the "creator" had foreseen they would.
In the biological sense they did indeed. I think for example He
intended Man to land on the moon on the 20 / 21 July 1969 (depending
on which side of the dateline you lived - 21st in Australia), and we
did. Proving He intended it is impossible, but I would bet a pound to
a penny He could have told Christopher Columbus that the first moon
shot would come from the New World, and the date.
and needs a driver with
free will to carry out the circumstances of the accident.
===>That is irrelevant.
The vehicle is DESIGNED in such a way that it WILL result in
an accident, REGARDLESS of the driver.
Granted the universe is running down, and if a huge asteroid is
hurtling towards the earth, it is probably by design. It has happened
before. Merely an example I might add.
We will, in
the end, demonstrate whether we were WILLING or not to do God's will.
I don't like it much, as I think it is unfair. However God is unfair
to many people really eg. the poor, deprived third worlder who gets
leprosy has every reason to think God has given him a raw deal. And
in terms of this worlds wealth, He has.
===>Console yourself!
There is no such "God".
Sorry, but I have had too many experiences to dismiss the buisness of
the spiritual realm. Some of them have been discouraging, some
frustrating, many deceptive ... but in the end I know from experience
as well as faith (which I believe is a form of experience) that the
spiritual world exists.
I am quite sure God exists, and sometimes I don't like Him, sometimes
I am in awe of Him, sometimes I get angry at Him, sometimes I think
He's incompetent, other times I think He's extremely clever.
Consoling myself would be like a swimmer who knows there's a "shark
out there somewhere, wearing a red dress, smoking a Chesterfield, and
singing 'I'm in the mood for love'" as Bob Hope said shortly before a
WWII plane accident not far from Sydney, but who is so desperate to do
his own thing by going swimming, he ignores the warning and plunges
right in.
Sometimes I think we need to forgive God.
===>Forgive silly ideas ABOUT "GOD"!
See above.
Purists will disagree,
saying God is holy etc. and hasn't done anything to deserve
forgiveness. Frankly I disagree - I think God has a great deal to
answer for. However if there is going to be "love" between God and
Man, then God might like to be forgiven. After all, He has to forgive
us for a lot.
===>You are talking about an imaginary being.
Personally I think we are the products of His formidable imagination.
Maybe He really wants friends, who forgive not only their enemies, but
also Him.
Christ intimated He will be so grateful, He will serve them at the
heavenly banquet.
The whole thing has been set up so God knows who want to be His
friends, and who do not.
On things like this I sit and think.
Most times I just sit.
Bob Crowley.
===>Perhaps you need to start THINKING more! ;-) -- L.
Oh, I think. My wife thinks I'm in LaLa Land a lot of the time.
Bob Crowley./
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
04 Oct 2003 12:14:08 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
You made a couple of remarks which I am going to comment on.
< CLIP >
===>He could avoid it by not making such a creature!
Your story does not work! Admit it.
He could have, but He didn't. It is a bit like a Jew hauled
up before a Gestapo for questioning and probable execution.
His protest "Adolf Hitler is an evil mongrel" is correct and
true. But it is also academic. He is in the judgement seat,
and is on trial for his life, regardless of whether he thinks
the set up is just or not.
It is interesting that you put Hitler in the role of God. Some
people say that there are similarities.
< CLIP >
Only if He holds Himself back, which to seom extent I think
He does. I am amazed however that there is a spiritual war
on, yet He seems to be able to look at a person's future
decisions without fail. Wars are usually quite unpredictable
in humans terms, especially for the poor sods in the front
lines.
If there is a spiritual war on, and God is omnescient, then why
has he not won yet?
And if war is unpredictiable, why do you assume that God will
win.
< CLIP >
We're dealing with an infinite mind, or rather, He is
dealing with us.
===>That is a cop-out!
It is a cop-out if it is not true. IF it is true, it is a mere
statement of fact.
But if we are dealing with an infinite mind, that mean that he is
beyond our understanding. We therefore have no way of knowing if
it is a merciful or a malevalent mind we are dealing with. Your
Hitler analogy may be correct.
< CLIP >
In the biological sense they did indeed. I think for example
He intended Man to land on the moon on the 20 / 21 July
1969 (depending on which side of the dateline you
lived - 21st in Australia), and we did. Proving He intended
it is impossible, but I would bet a pound to a penny He
could have told Christopher Columbus that the first moon
shot would come from the New World, and the date.
If he he intended the moon landing, did he also intend for man to
fall? Did he intend for World War II? Did he intend for Hitler?
Did he intend for millions of Jews to die?
===>Console yourself!
There is no such "God".
Sorry, but I have had too many experiences to dismiss the
buisness of the spiritual realm. Some of them have been
discouraging, some frustrating, many deceptive ... but in the
end I know from experience as well as faith (which I believe
is a form of experience) that the spiritual world exists.
But what of those who have had different spiritual experiences?
Some people have felt the presence of a pantheistic god, do you
dismiss their spiritual experiences? Others have had spiritual
experiences which leads them into Buddhism which does not worship
a god, do you dismiss their experiences? Native American
religions place a great deal of confidence on religious
experience, and they see a world which is inhabited with numerous
spiritual beings, do you dismiss them?.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
05 Oct 2003 05:37:14 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<AdDfb.163867$0v4.12376950@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
But if we are dealing with an infinite mind, that mean that he is
beyond our understanding. We therefore have no way of knowing if
it is a merciful or a malevalent mind we are dealing with. Your
Hitler analogy may be correct.
If the Infinite Mind were malevolent, there would be no evidence of
love, beauty, joy, peace anywhere. But in human life there are
evidences of both extremes eg. a marriage ceremony replete with
flowers, music etc, and a concentration camp with starving Jews,
starving prisoners, torture, and not a shred of joy anywhere.
To my mind these things indicate two opposing beings - God, and the
devil. For those who make jokes eg. making a takeover bid in Hell,
then perhaps they should reflect on concentration camps.
If he he intended the moon landing, did he also intend for man to
fall? Did he intend for World War II? Did he intend for Hitler?
Did he intend for millions of Jews to die?
Christ said "How terrible for the world that such things MUST happen".
Therefore God knew what would happen. In that respect He is
reponsible since, although individual men made the decisions (and we
should not forget this), it was part of His plan.
"My ways are not your ways" said the Lord. Last night I heard a
survivor from another country speak. His experiences could have
embittered him, but he knew that God does not work the way we would
like.
But what of those who have had different spiritual experiences?
Some people have felt the presence of a pantheistic god, do you
dismiss their spiritual experiences? Others have had spiritual
experiences which leads them into Buddhism which does not worship
a god, do you dismiss their experiences? Native American
religions place a great deal of confidence on religious
experience, and they see a world which is inhabited with numerous
spiritual beings, do you dismiss them?.
No, I don't. I've had spiritual experiences myself, and I also know
taht a great many of them have been deceptive, and therefore demonic
in origin. There have been a few I believe are angelic or divine.
For a start if the spiritual world is real, as Christianity states,
then there are bound to be instances of commmunication between this
world and the spiritual.
But an experience does not mean we understand the method, nor does it
mean that our explanation of the cause is necessarily correct.
I think it was Tolstoy who pointed out the different reactions of
certain groups of people to seeing a steam train. They ranged from an
engineer who understood the principles, to a townsman who thought the
fire and smoke made it run, to a peasant who thought the devil ran it.
But the sight and experience of the steam train passing would have
been much the same for all.
God reveals Himself to those who look for Him. I believe that God as
Christ is the closest we will get to seeing Him this side of life.
And the Gospels mentions the the Incarnation was announced by an angel
(a spiritual being), warning given in a dream (Joseph to flee to
Egypt), that the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove during Christ's
baptism, followed by the Father's voice.
Demons were driven out on numerous occasions, miracles took place,
many were healed. At His death a supernatural darkness occurred, an
earthquake which did more than just shake the ground took place. An
angel rolled the stone away, an angel told the onlookers Christ had
gone to heaven. IN short the Gospels are replete with spiritual
beings.
But today Christianity in the West has become doctrine.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
06 Oct 2003 02:11:18 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
But if we are dealing with an infinite mind, that mean that
he
is beyond our understanding. We therefore have no way
of knowing if it is a merciful or a malevalent mind we are
dealing with. Your Hitler analogy may be correct.
If the Infinite Mind were malevolent, there would be no
evidence of love, beauty, joy, peace anywhere. But in
human life there are evidences of both extremes eg. a
marriage ceremony replete with flowers, music etc, and
a concentration camp with starving Jews, starving prisoners,
torture, and not a shred of joy anywhere.
To my mind these things indicate two opposing beings -
God, and the devil. For those who make jokes eg. making
a takeover bid in Hell, then perhaps they should reflect on
concentration camps.
The existence of opposites does not indicate opposing beings.
There are also opposites in high and low, hot and cold, day and
night, black and white. It has been argued that good could not
exist without evil. That would lead to the conclusion that God
could not exist without the devil, or that the two are mere
different extremes of the same phenomenon.
If he he intended the moon landing, did he also intend for
man to fall? Did he intend for World War II? Did he
intend for Hitler? Did he intend for millions of Jews to
die?
Christ said "How terrible for the world that such things
MUST happen".
Therefore God knew what would happen. In that respect
He is reponsible since, although individual men made the
decisions (and we should not forget this), it was part of His
plan.
"My ways are not your ways" said the Lord. Last night I
heard a survivor from another country speak. His
experiences could have embittered him, but he knew that
God does not work the way we would like.
You avoided the question. Your statement was that God "intended
Man to land on the moon." I am asked you did he intend World War
II? Did he intend for Hitler? Did he intend for millions of
Jews to die?
This gets back to Libertarius' statement that if God knew in
advance that if he created Adam and Eve that they would fail,
and if he placed that tree and that snake with them in the
Garden,
the earthlings would disobey his warning. So, by going ahead and
making them, he created them to fail. That is he intended for
them to fail.
But what of those who have had different spiritual
experiences? Some people have felt the presence of a
pantheistic god, do you dismiss their spiritual experiences?
Others have had spiritual experiences which leads them
into Buddhism which does not worship a god, do you
dismiss their experiences? Native American religions
place a great deal of confidence on religious experience,
and they see a world which is inhabited with numerous
spiritual beings, do you dismiss them?.
No, I don't. I've had spiritual experiences myself, and I
also know taht a great many of them have been deceptive,
and therefore demonic in origin. There have been a few I
believe are angelic or divine. For a start if the spiritual
world
is real, as Christianity states, then there are bound to be
instances of commmunication between this world and the
spiritual.
The way I read your answer, you are dismissing the religious
experience claims of others. You are catagorizing them as
deceptive and demonic in origin. That response opens the
possiblity that you are the one being deceived.
But an experience does not mean we understand the method,
nor does it mean that our explanation of the cause is
necessarily correct.
I prefer the explanation in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol":
"Why do you doubt your senses?"
"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them.
A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats.
You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of
mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an
underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of
grave about you, whatever you are!"
I think it was Tolstoy who pointed out the different reactions
of certain groups of people to seeing a steam train. They
ranged from an engineer who understood the principles, to a
townsman who thought the fire and smoke made it run, to a
peasant who thought the devil ran it. But the sight and
experience of the steam train passing would have
been much the same for all.
Your explanations are close to that of the peasant. You
attribute what you cannot explain to a supernatural cause.
God reveals Himself to those who look for Him. I believe that
God as Christ is the closest we will get to seeing Him this
side
of life. And the Gospels mentions the the Incarnation was
announced by an angel (a spiritual being), warning given in a
dream (Joseph to flee to Egypt), that the Holy Spirit appeared
as a dove during Christ's baptism, followed by the Father's
voice.
Have you noticed that it is Luke which relies upon the
appearances of angels. In Matthew, it is through dreams. This
is more indicative of the viewpoints of the authors than of what
really happened.
Demons were driven out on numerous occasions, miracles
took place, many were healed. At His death a supernatural
darkness occurred, an earthquake which did more than just
shake the ground took place. An angel rolled the stone away,
an angel told the onlookers Christ had gone to heaven. IN
short the Gospels are replete with spiritual beings.
Scientist no longer attribute illnesses to the presence of
demons. That is an old superstition. Such stories as Mary
Magdalene being possessed of seven demons ( Luke 8:2) would be
laughed at today, as would the story of Jesus driving demons out
of a mad man and sending them into a herd of pigs (Luke 8:26-39.)
These stories were written at a time before we had an
understanding of desease and mental illness.
It is interesting how a young man Mark 16, becomes an angel in
Matthew, and two angels in Luke. Finally in John there is little
similarity with Mark's original version of the events.
But today Christianity in the West has become doctrine.
It has become dogma.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
08 Oct 2003 08:43:55 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<q7jgb.171101$3o3.12546152@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
The existence of opposites does not indicate opposing beings.
There are also opposites in high and low, hot and cold, day and
night, black and white. It has been argued that good could not
exist without evil. That would lead to the conclusion that God
could not exist without the devil, or that the two are mere
different extremes of the same phenomenon.
The existences of opposites indicates causes. High and low, depending
on the context, could depend on a person's genetic code, a building's
plan, tectonic plates for mountain or plain. HOt and cold depend on a
heat source basically, since in teh absence of energy things grow
"cold". Day and night depend on teh earth's rotation about it's axis,
black and white depend on the nature of the reflecting material or the
absence of light.
In short there is a cause for all these differences. The thing we need
to decide for ourselves is what is the reason for good and evil, which
also need a cause, by virtue of being opposites.
You avoided the question. Your statement was that God "intended
Man to land on the moon." I am asked you did he intend World War
II? Did he intend for Hitler? Did he intend for millions of
Jews to die?
I think His plan included those things - yes. That we were WILLING to
do those things is also important. Nobody forced Hitler to do what he
did.
The point is that according to Christian doctrine, His plan also
includes judgement, and provision for eternal blessing or damnation,
based on the results of our own choices.
If Christian doctrine is correct, Adolf Hitler and most of those who
did his bidding are now in Hell, paying for it eternally. However the
simple fact of being a victim of Hitler does not mean he or she is in
heaven either. Ernst Roehm, the leader of the Brown Shirts, the
precursor of the SS, was murdered during a purge. As far as I am
concerned he also is in Hell. He probably spends eternity screaming
at Hitler, between his own torments.
This gets back to Libertarius' statement that if God knew in
advance that if he created Adam and Eve that they would fail,
and if he placed that tree and that snake with them in the
Garden,
the earthlings would disobey his warning. So, by going ahead and
making them, he created them to fail. That is he intended for
them to fail.
Darn right. He did indeed, as I quoted in my previous text, "How
terrible for the world that such things MUST happen."
Christ also made it clear that such things were hidden from the wise
and learned, and revealed to the simple, again by God, who wanted to
leave Man no room to boast.
No, I don't. I've had spiritual experiences myself, and I
also know taht a great many of them have been deceptive,
and therefore demonic in origin. There have been a few I
believe are angelic or divine. For a start if the spiritual
world
is real, as Christianity states, then there are bound to be
instances of commmunication between this world and the
spiritual.
The way I read your answer, you are dismissing the religious
experience claims of others. You are catagorizing them as
deceptive and demonic in origin. That response opens the
possiblity that you are the one being deceived.
At times I have been deceived. I have no doubt about that. I know of
a certain deception which I received which in another man's case
almost destroyed a ministry he was involved in (I had nothing to do
with that I might add). Some time before I heard this man speak and
his face appeared demonic, unfortunately.
I don't dismiss the religious experience of others. If I were of a
different faith, and had the same experiences I have had myself, I
would tend to think they confirmed what I already believed, except in
the case of Buddhism, since some of the experiences indicated that an
outside source clearly knew what I was thinking, and was thus
personal.
But an experience does not mean we understand the method,
nor does it mean that our explanation of the cause is
necessarily correct.
I prefer the explanation in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol":
"Why do you doubt your senses?"
"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them.
A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats.
You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of
mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an
underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of
grave about you, whatever you are!"
The great mystics, whether Christian or Buddhist, Sufi or Shaman,
would tell you the depths of their spiritual experience is not
sensual.
I think it was Tolstoy who pointed out the different reactions
of certain groups of people to seeing a steam train. They
ranged from an engineer who understood the principles, to a
townsman who thought the fire and smoke made it run, to a
peasant who thought the devil ran it. But the sight and
experience of the steam train passing would have
been much the same for all.
Your explanations are close to that of the peasant. You
attribute what you cannot explain to a supernatural cause.
You seem to have missed the point. I'm simply saying that our
pre-existing knowledge and beliefs determine our interpretation of
things, spiritual or otherwise.
God reveals Himself to those who look for Him. I believe that
God as Christ is the closest we will get to seeing Him this
side
of life. And the Gospels mentions the the Incarnation was
announced by an angel (a spiritual being), warning given in a
dream (Joseph to flee to Egypt), that the Holy Spirit appeared
as a dove during Christ's baptism, followed by the Father's
voice.
Have you noticed that it is Luke which relies upon the
appearances of angels. In Matthew, it is through dreams. This
is more indicative of the viewpoints of the authors than of what
really happened.
As someone who has had "visions" I can tell you it is very hard to
determine what is real and what is not. For example if you saw
someone dressed as Santa Claus in front of you, and the image was
somehow imprinted onto your sight / memory cells for five minutes,
while the real Santa walked away, you would to all intents and
purposes still believe that Santa was standing right there until the
five minutes was up.
I personally think a lot of the supernatural messages are delivered
through our minds. God is spirit, and He is also intelligence. It
does not make any difference whether we "saw" an angel, or whether an
angel manipulated our mind so that we "thought" we "saw" an angel.
Secondly I also suspect angels, who are probably best described as
pure intelligence, manipulate our minds to give us a human
representation of their appearance in order to allow us to feel some
sense of familiarity.
CS Lewis, whom I suspect of having spiritual experiences of his own,
once described in one of his works of fiction, that the "Eldila"
dropped their "creaturely" appearance and became a series of almost
mathematical symbols (circles within circles, etc.). Now it was only
a story, but I strongly suspect he based it on something he had
himself experienced.
Demons were driven out on numerous occasions, miracles
took place, many were healed. At His death a supernatural
darkness occurred, an earthquake which did more than just
shake the ground took place. An angel rolled the stone away,
an angel told the onlookers Christ had gone to heaven. IN
short the Gospels are replete with spiritual beings.
Scientist no longer attribute illnesses to the presence of
demons. That is an old superstition. Such stories as Mary
Magdalene being possessed of seven demons ( Luke 8:2) would be
laughed at today, as would the story of Jesus driving demons out
of a mad man and sending them into a herd of pigs (Luke 8:26-39.)
These stories were written at a time before we had an
understanding of desease and mental illness.
Demons still occur. We had a murder in this part of the world a few
years ago, where a group of young women almost cut off a man's head,
and then drank some of his blood (I think). It got the nickname "the
Vampire murder". The ringleader had been heavily involved in
witchcraft.
During an interview with a psychiatrist, her voice suddenly dropped to
a deep basso profundo, and said "I'm Big Tracey". The psychiatrist, a
secular person I believe, found himself almost thrown out of his
chair. Now she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but I have
suspicions about the totality of that opinion.
It is interesting how a young man Mark 16, becomes an angel in
Matthew, and two angels in Luke. Finally in John there is little
similarity with Mark's original version of the events.
Angels usually appear as men, as far as I know. The winged version of
artists is probably traditional rather than real. See my comments
above about the way our minds can be manipulated.
But today Christianity in the West has become doctrine.
It has become dogma.
Doctrine and dogma are indentical when they are strongly believed.
Communists had doctrinal dogma, Moslems have doctrinal dogma,
Humanists have doctrinal dogam ("Man is the captain of his fate").
So what?
But the real point I was making when I said it had become doctrine was
that it had become dry and dull, with very little supernatural
evidence for most believers.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
08 Oct 2003 12:37:01 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Christ also made it clear that such things were hidden from
the wise and learned, and revealed to the simple, again by
God, who wanted to leave Man no room to boast.
If such things are hidden from the wise, then it is only fools
who claim to understand these things.
Which does not say much for your pretence of understanding.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
08 Oct 2003 03:02:58 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Christ also made it clear that such things were hidden from
the wise and learned, and revealed to the simple, again by
God, who wanted to leave Man no room to boast.
If such things are hidden from the wise, then it is only fools
who claim to understand these things.
Which does not say much for your pretence of understanding.
===>But Saul/Paul, founder of Christianity, insisted that
"foolishness" is better than "wisdom". and you must be
a MORON FOR CHRIST (Greek MOROI DIA CHRISTON
1 Cor. 4:10).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
08 Oct 2003 11:57:05 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
Weatherwax wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Christ also made it clear that such things were hidden from
the wise and learned, and revealed to the simple, again by
God, who wanted to leave Man no room to boast.
If such things are hidden from the wise, then it is only
fools
who claim to understand these things.
Which does not say much for your pretence of understanding.
===>But Saul/Paul, founder of Christianity, insisted that
"foolishness" is better than "wisdom". and you must be
a MORON FOR CHRIST (Greek MOROI DIA CHRISTON
1 Cor. 4:10).
I am confused. Is Bob saying that he understands these things
because he is a fool, which makes him wise, while a wise man
cannot understand these things, which makes him a fool? That
foolishness.
Is that what Paul meant by MOROI DIA CHRISTON?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 08:52:18 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
Weatherwax wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Christ also made it clear that such things were hidden from
the wise and learned, and revealed to the simple, again by
God, who wanted to leave Man no room to boast.
If such things are hidden from the wise, then it is only
fools
who claim to understand these things.
Which does not say much for your pretence of understanding.
===>But Saul/Paul, founder of Christianity, insisted that
"foolishness" is better than "wisdom". and you must be
a MORON FOR CHRIST (Greek MOROI DIA CHRISTON
1 Cor. 4:10).
I am confused. Is Bob saying that he understands these things
because he is a fool, which makes him wise, while a wise man
cannot understand these things, which makes him a fool? That
foolishness.
Is that what Paul meant by MOROI DIA CHRISTON?
===>Precisely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
09 Oct 2003 04:32:32 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F846D72.A03AC35B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
===>But Saul/Paul, founder of Christianity, insisted that
"foolishness" is better than "wisdom". and you must be
a MORON FOR CHRIST (Greek MOROI DIA CHRISTON
1 Cor. 4:10).
Last Sunday night I listened to a very brave, tough Christian from
another country who had his legs broken with a sledge hammer by the
police for escaping yet again. Not long after that he miraculously
walked out of a high security prison, and is now in the West.
He reminded me of Paul, in his tough singlemindedness. The secular
authorities, the academics, the worldly people would however regard
him as a fool, taking spectacular risks and unnecessary pains on
behalf of an illusion.
What spoiled the "illusion" however was the miracles of healing he and
other Christians were performing in that country, a fact acknowledged
by a senior party official and a police officer.
The world thinks Christianity is foolish. The world has yet to
explain why the Abrahamic religions keep taking centre stage, why the
Jews suffer so much yet persevere for so long, why the church is still
around 2000 years later when Bolshevism is all but erased from most
countries, and why the world is so hostile to Christ, when He bluntly
said it would be, and that on His account His followers would be
persecuted.
Christ was very blunt about it. And He was right.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
09 Oct 2003 11:56:47 AM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310090132.36438b26@posting.google.com...
The world thinks Christianity is foolish. The world has yet to
explain why the Abrahamic religions keep taking centre stage, why the
Jews suffer so much yet persevere for so long, why the church is still
around 2000 years later when Bolshevism is all but erased from most
countries, and why the world is so hostile to Christ, when He bluntly
said it would be, and that on His account His followers would be
persecuted.
Christ was very blunt about it. And He was right.
Bob Crowley.
"Jesus Christ" is a Title not a personal name. BTW this Jeeesus of yours
(assuming he existed) never wrote a damn thing.
You are a wee bit paranoid.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
10 Oct 2003 04:47:46 AM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<vob4qts1jin8b3@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310090132.36438b26@posting.google.com...
The world thinks Christianity is foolish. The world has yet to
explain why the Abrahamic religions keep taking centre stage, why the
Jews suffer so much yet persevere for so long, why the church is still
around 2000 years later when Bolshevism is all but erased from most
countries, and why the world is so hostile to Christ, when He bluntly
said it would be, and that on His account His followers would be
persecuted.
Christ was very blunt about it. And He was right.
Bob Crowley.
"Jesus Christ" is a Title not a personal name. BTW this Jeeesus of yours
(assuming he existed) never wrote a damn thing.
You are a wee bit paranoid.
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the fight hand of
the Father, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead.
The name is not all that important. A rose by any other name is still
a rose. Adolf Hitler's real surnamne was "Schickelgruber" or
something like that (Heil Schickelgruber??). The fact he decided to
call himself Hitler does not change one whit what he did, nor did
Joseph Stalin's name change make any difference, other than to reflect
his brutal and cruel tyranny, as the "man of steel".
Bob Crowley
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
10 Oct 2003 03:24:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310100147.447f6043@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<vob4qts1jin8b3@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310090132.36438b26@posting.google.com...
"Jesus Christ" is a Title not a personal name. BTW this Jeeesus of yours
(assuming he existed) never wrote a damn thing.
You are a wee bit paranoid.
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the fight hand of
the Father, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
10 Oct 2003 08:42:12 PM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the
fight hand of the Father, from whence he shall come to
judge the living and the dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
There were more than just Jesus. According to the unknown author
who wrote "The Gospel According to Matthew," when Jesus died
there was an earthquake and dead people rose up. After the
resurrection these same dead people came out of their tombs and
walked through the city. (Matthew 27:51-53)
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
10 Oct 2003 10:30:59 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:UdJhb.171931$0v4.13117333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the
fight hand of the Father, from whence he shall come to
judge the living and the dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
There were more than just Jesus. According to the unknown author
who wrote "The Gospel According to Matthew," when Jesus died
there was an earthquake and dead people rose up. After the
resurrection these same dead people came out of their tombs and
walked through the city. (Matthew 27:51-53)
There were certainly a lot of imaginative people (of sincere faith) who
contributed to the "Gospels", and not intending to belittle those people who
place credence in their Bibles, I can't buy that either.
Take care,
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
11 Oct 2003 05:37:12 AM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voeviogg1j9sae@corp.supernews.com>...
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:UdJhb.171931$0v4.13117333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the
fight hand of the Father, from whence he shall come to
judge the living and the dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
There were more than just Jesus. According to the unknown author
who wrote "The Gospel According to Matthew," when Jesus died
there was an earthquake and dead people rose up. After the
resurrection these same dead people came out of their tombs and
walked through the city. (Matthew 27:51-53)
There were certainly a lot of imaginative people (of sincere faith) who
contributed to the "Gospels", and not intending to belittle those people who
place credence in their Bibles, I can't buy that either.
Take care,
I'm not sure where you get the "lots of imaginative people" from,
unless you are talking about the fairly minor differences between
them. If you did an interview roundup of people on the ground at 9/11
you would get all sorts of accounts.
But they would share similar features eg. two planes were involved,
the buildings stood up for some time, the collapse etc. To different
people different things would have had more emphasis.
The Gospels are remarkably consistent. Try the old party trick of
passing on information one person at a time, and see how different the
results are.
The fact they are so consistent indicates to me they, or their source
documents, were written while the eye-witnesses were still alive.
Bob Crowley
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
11 Oct 2003 12:25:50 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310110237.63ea6ac4@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<voeviogg1j9sae@corp.supernews.com>...
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:UdJhb.171931$0v4.13117333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There were certainly a lot of imaginative people (of sincere faith) who
contributed to the "Gospels", and not intending to belittle those people
who
place credence in their Bibles, I can't buy that either.
Take care,
I'm not sure where you get the "lots of imaginative people" from,
unless you are talking about the fairly minor differences between
them. If you did an interview roundup of people on the ground at 9/11
you would get all sorts of accounts.
One wouldn't expect many "differences" between the synoptic Gospels, as a
base logia (probably Mark) was used to compile the other two Gospels (ie.
Matthew and Luke). Also remember that if we would include the thousands of
codices and scrolls which were not included in liturgical canon the
differences would be far from minor. Keep in mind that the last chapter (ie.
16) seems to be an "add on" considering the fact that of the extant copies
of Mark, most of the 16th chapters were few in number and somewhat
corrupted. The rest I leave you to your analysis. And remember I never
proposed a deliberate fraud or conspiracy theory - just expressing my
observation that the Bible (ie. Old Testament) is not a viable historical
text.
But they would share similar features eg. two planes were involved,
the buildings stood up for some time, the collapse etc. To different
people different things would have had more emphasis.
The Gospels are remarkably consistent. Try the old party trick of
passing on information one person at a time, and see how different the
results are.
The fact they are so consistent indicates to me they, or their source
documents, were written while the eye-witnesses were still alive.
Let's just say that I just don't buy Scriptures as a reliable source; as an
aside I can't even establish the historical Jesus Christ as a reality.
Take care
--
Stephen Bayzik
Bob Crowley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 10:39:13 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voeviogg1j9sae@corp.supernews.com>...
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:UdJhb.171931$0v4.13117333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the
fight hand of the Father, from whence he shall come to
judge the living and the dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
There were more than just Jesus. According to the unknown author
who wrote "The Gospel According to Matthew," when Jesus died
there was an earthquake and dead people rose up. After the
resurrection these same dead people came out of their tombs and
walked through the city. (Matthew 27:51-53)
There were certainly a lot of imaginative people (of sincere faith) who
contributed to the "Gospels", and not intending to belittle those people who
place credence in their Bibles, I can't buy that either.
Take care,
I'm not sure where you get the "lots of imaginative people" from,
unless you are talking about the fairly minor differences between
them. If you did an interview roundup of people on the ground at 9/11
you would get all sorts of accounts.
But they would share similar features eg. two planes were involved,
the buildings stood up for some time, the collapse etc. To different
people different things would have had more emphasis.
The Gospels are remarkably consistent.
===>The only consistency comes from COPYING.
But each author chose a different approach and created different
illustrations for his propaganda piece.
Try the old party trick of
passing on information one person at a time, and see how different the
results are.
The fact they are so consistent indicates to me they, or their source
documents, were written while the eye-witnesses were still alive.
===>There was NOTHING written for about a hundred years.
Most of the Jews were killed in the 60's, and certainly were dead
by the second century when those books were produced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 10:30:58 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the
fight hand of the Father, from whence he shall come to
judge the living and the dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
There were more than just Jesus. According to the unknown author
who wrote "The Gospel According to Matthew," when Jesus died
there was an earthquake and dead people rose up. After the
resurrection these same dead people came out of their tombs and
walked through the city. (Matthew 27:51-53)
===>What a ZOMBI JAMBOREE!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
11 Oct 2003 05:33:24 AM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voe5c9n3g6kvc9@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310100147.447f6043@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<vob4qts1jin8b3@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310090132.36438b26@posting.google.com...
"Jesus Christ" is a Title not a personal name. BTW this Jeeesus of yours
(assuming he existed) never wrote a damn thing.
You are a wee bit paranoid.
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the fight hand of
the Father, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
Frankly I don't think our corpses will have much of a presence at all.
The worms, flames etc. will have gotten to them long ago. For all
you know you might have eaten food today which had atoms in it from a
long dead person. In fact there is probably a certain consistent
percentage of food which contains recycled components of dead animals
at least.
The battered old carcass we carry around with us is strictly
biodegradable, and even has built-in obsolescence designed by the
Planner. Man wanting to live forever is trying to beat the century
mark, half of which will be spent in a wheelchair I assume.
I'd rather take my chances on God.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- "God's nature" -- THE CHAIR |
14 Oct 2003 10:35:43 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voe5c9n3g6kvc9@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310100147.447f6043@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<vob4qts1jin8b3@corp.supernews.com>...
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0310090132.36438b26@posting.google.com...
"Jesus Christ" is a Title not a personal name. BTW this Jeeesus of yours
(assuming he existed) never wrote a damn thing.
You are a wee bit paranoid.
He existed, died, rose again, and is now seated at the fight hand of
the Father, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead.
Now we have corpses rising from the dead? :)
Sorry Bob, I can't buy that.
Frankly I don't think our corpses will have much of a presence at all.
The worms, flames etc. will have gotten to them long ago. For all
you know you might have eaten food today which had atoms in it from a
long dead person. In fact there is probably a certain consistent
percentage of food which contains recycled components of dead animals
at least.
The battered old carcass we carry around with us is strictly
biodegradable, and even has built-in obsolescence designed by the
Planner. Man wanting to live forever is trying to beat the century
mark, half of which will be spent in a wheelchair I assume.
I'd rather take my chances on God.
===>How do you make sure to pick the right one?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
