| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gary DeWaay" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 01:02:54 PM |
| Object: |
My Sunday morning sermon: |
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 01:40:26 PM |
|
|
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed. Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening. What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 07:00:48 PM |
|
|
Randy Story, typed...
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side.
Are these odds posted in the churches in Vegas or something? Or perhaps
you are a prophet?
Besides, I said I like MY odds.
What difference does it make to YOU what these odds might be? Did you
even read my sermon?
The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed. Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening. What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior.
[sigh] Either you didn't read my sermon, or it zoomed right over your
head.
And I tried SOOooo hard.
What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work.
Heheh. For some reason I thought of our President when I first read
this.
I think you might rethink your position.
The only people that ever gave me much of anything that I didn't earn
were my parents... and I KNOW they existed. I have no idea if God
exists. A horrible analogy, because my parents knew I appreciated what
they gave me.
Gary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 02:11:59 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Because big universe making things don't need a cause, right? Can you
provide an example?
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
Whoa! That nearly pegged the old irony-o-meter!
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Because it's SO much better to claim that your nature is the ultimate
crowning acheivement of an omnipotent, universe spanning being, who is
deeply concerned with you, personally. Yeah, that's not arrogant at all.
Iimagine that Gary would agree that we're probably doing the best we can
with what the mindless process of evolution left us with. Yeah, that's just
dripping with arrogance.
Plus the Christians assert we have free will. Now they'll say the god
character gave it to us but they'll also insist that what we do with it is
OUR OWN CHOICE. So if that is the case, then we DO define our own nature by
our moral choices. YOU'RE denying the supposed gift of free will that the
god character went to such pains to give us. YOU'RE the one supposedly in
trouble.
"I think you might rethink your position."
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 04:22:04 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:eK2dnVkqi7uwv2qiRVn-jg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the
continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was
"false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about
it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's
all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed
and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems
a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or
some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's
idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad
things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and
things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone
else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that
also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and
understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Because big universe making things don't need a cause, right? Can you
provide an example?
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
Whoa! That nearly pegged the old irony-o-meter!
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was
his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Because it's SO much better to claim that your nature is the ultimate
crowning acheivement of an omnipotent, universe spanning being, who is
deeply concerned with you, personally. Yeah, that's not arrogant at all.
Iimagine that Gary would agree that we're probably doing the best we can
with what the mindless process of evolution left us with. Yeah, that's
just
dripping with arrogance.
Plus the Christians assert we have free will. Now they'll say the god
character gave it to us but they'll also insist that what we do with it is
OUR OWN CHOICE. So if that is the case, then we DO define our own nature
by
our moral choices. YOU'RE denying the supposed gift of free will that the
god character went to such pains to give us. YOU'RE the one supposedly in
trouble.
"I think you might rethink your position."
Not at all, freewill is a gift and the choice to see mercy and apply it is a
gift. I am acting in humility by acknowledgement of honoring the giver of
these gifts. We do define our moral nature by our choices but it is also a
choice to not only see the gift of being good or mercyful
but seeing the giver of that gift. Since you neither recognize the gift or
the giver you must claim all acts of goodness as flowing from your own
nature which of course is the ultimate act of usurping credit for what is
given to you, the ultimate in arrogance & pride.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 09:34:36 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vveg97g4olt208@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:eK2dnVkqi7uwv2qiRVn-jg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked
his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the
continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was
"false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call
my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made
fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little
kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about
it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's
all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed
and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom
of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the
"great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as
they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth"
seems
a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or
some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like
two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's
idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love
aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad
things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in
love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things
that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and
things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I
would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't
bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone
else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it.
If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that
also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and
understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had
a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Because big universe making things don't need a cause, right? Can you
provide an example?
I'll take that as a big fat no. You don't have anything at all to support
your argument that the god you're trying to push doesn't need a cause.
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
Whoa! That nearly pegged the old irony-o-meter!
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this
is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was
his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Because it's SO much better to claim that your nature is the ultimate
crowning acheivement of an omnipotent, universe spanning being, who is
deeply concerned with you, personally. Yeah, that's not arrogant at all.
Do you believe your nature is the ultimate crowning acheivement of a
universe-spanning being that is deeply concerned with you personally? A
simple yes or no will suffice.
Iimagine that Gary would agree that we're probably doing the best we can
with what the mindless process of evolution left us with. Yeah, that's
just
dripping with arrogance.
Well? Is it?
Plus the Christians assert we have free will. Now they'll say the god
character gave it to us but they'll also insist that what we do with it
is
OUR OWN CHOICE. So if that is the case, then we DO define our own nature
by
our moral choices. YOU'RE denying the supposed gift of free will that
the
god character went to such pains to give us. YOU'RE the one supposedly
in
trouble.
"I think you might rethink your position."
Not at all, freewill is a gift and the choice to see mercy and apply it is
a
gift.
No, the freewill is supposedly a gift, but the mercy thing is a choice. If
it was a gift then it doesn't come from you and cannot be your choice, which
kinda robs freewill of any purpose.
I am acting in humility by acknowledgement of honoring the giver of
these gifts.
No, you're indulging in the conceit that you cannot be wrong as to what god,
if any, is in charge.
We do define our moral nature by our choices but it is also a
choice to not only see the gift of being good or mercyful
but seeing the giver of that gift.
If being good and mercyful is a gift, then you are admitting that you are
not naturally good or mercyful, and that goodness and mercy are foreign to
your nature.
That's actually not as much a surprise to us as you might think.
Since you neither recognize the gift or
the giver you must claim all acts of goodness as flowing from your own
nature which of course is the ultimate act of usurping credit for what is
given to you, the ultimate in arrogance & pride.
No. Since we don't recognize the god or the gift, we can't be guilty of
arrogance and pride because we don't believe we are usurping anything
whatsoever. We can only be guilty of arrogance and pride in this matter if
we believe that we are usurping the gifts of your supposed god.
We don't, so we aren't.
But let me ask you a question: If you didn't have those supposed gifts of
goodness and mercy, would you rather be behaving in a bad and mercyless
manner?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 10:20:53 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:NL-dnazNjbN2FGqiRVn-hg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vveg97g4olt208@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:eK2dnVkqi7uwv2qiRVn-jg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked
his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as
a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved
down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the
continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was
"false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call
my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made
fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little
kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing
about
it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't
make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what
my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and
that's
all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were
impressed
and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the
wisdom
of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the
"great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as
they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth"
seems
a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or
some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking
in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to
begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like
two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's
idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love
aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad
things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in
love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things
that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and
things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this.
I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to
be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I
would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't
bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone
else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it.
If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that
also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and
understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I
don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe
had
a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Because big universe making things don't need a cause, right? Can you
provide an example?
I'll take that as a big fat no. You don't have anything at all to support
your argument that the god you're trying to push doesn't need a cause.
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
Whoa! That nearly pegged the old irony-o-meter!
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If
this
is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is
the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given*
a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it
was
his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Because it's SO much better to claim that your nature is the ultimate
crowning acheivement of an omnipotent, universe spanning being, who is
deeply concerned with you, personally. Yeah, that's not arrogant at
all.
Do you believe your nature is the ultimate crowning acheivement of a
universe-spanning being that is deeply concerned with you personally? A
simple yes or no will suffice.
Iimagine that Gary would agree that we're probably doing the best we
can
with what the mindless process of evolution left us with. Yeah, that's
just
dripping with arrogance.
Well? Is it?
Plus the Christians assert we have free will. Now they'll say the god
character gave it to us but they'll also insist that what we do with
it
is
OUR OWN CHOICE. So if that is the case, then we DO define our own
nature
by
our moral choices. YOU'RE denying the supposed gift of free will that
the
god character went to such pains to give us. YOU'RE the one supposedly
in
trouble.
"I think you might rethink your position."
Not at all, freewill is a gift and the choice to see mercy and apply it
is
a
gift.
No, the freewill is supposedly a gift, but the mercy thing is a choice. If
it was a gift then it doesn't come from you and cannot be your choice,
which
kinda robs freewill of any purpose.
I am acting in humility by acknowledgement of honoring the giver of
these gifts.
No, you're indulging in the conceit that you cannot be wrong as to what
god,
if any, is in charge.
We do define our moral nature by our choices but it is also a
choice to not only see the gift of being good or mercyful
but seeing the giver of that gift.
If being good and mercyful is a gift, then you are admitting that you are
not naturally good or mercyful, and that goodness and mercy are foreign to
your nature.
That's actually not as much a surprise to us as you might think.
Since you neither recognize the gift or
the giver you must claim all acts of goodness as flowing from your own
nature which of course is the ultimate act of usurping credit for what
is
given to you, the ultimate in arrogance & pride.
No. Since we don't recognize the god or the gift, we can't be guilty of
arrogance and pride because we don't believe we are usurping anything
whatsoever. We can only be guilty of arrogance and pride in this matter if
we believe that we are usurping the gifts of your supposed god.
We don't, so we aren't.
But let me ask you a question: If you didn't have those supposed gifts of
goodness and mercy, would you rather be behaving in a bad and mercyless
manner?
Ther is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What this means of
course is that we all have a responsibility to not be ignorant of certain
truths. The truth of Gods existence is one such truth. Sorry!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
04 Jan 2004 03:30:50 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vvf8e1m5llbr94@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:NL-dnazNjbN2FGqiRVn-hg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vveg97g4olt208@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:eK2dnVkqi7uwv2qiRVn-jg@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and
asked
his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized
as
a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved
down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the
continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now
was
"false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to
call
my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they
made
fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the
little
kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing
about
it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't
make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's
what
my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and
that's
all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were
impressed
and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the
wisdom
of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the
"great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same
as
they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth"
seems
a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would
be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth....
or
some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking
in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to
begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's
like
two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander.
Everyone's
idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love
aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad
things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in
love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both
things
that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and
things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish
this.
I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want
to
be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I
would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't
bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or
anyone
else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against
it.
If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight
that
also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and
understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty
cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I
don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe
had
a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Because big universe making things don't need a cause, right? Can
you
provide an example?
I'll take that as a big fat no. You don't have anything at all to
support
your argument that the god you're trying to push doesn't need a cause.
Looks like that's the case. You make ***** up and expect people to believe
it.
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
Whoa! That nearly pegged the old irony-o-meter!
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If
this
is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is
the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was
*given*
a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it
was
his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Because it's SO much better to claim that your nature is the
ultimate
crowning acheivement of an omnipotent, universe spanning being, who
is
deeply concerned with you, personally. Yeah, that's not arrogant at
all.
Do you believe your nature is the ultimate crowning acheivement of a
universe-spanning being that is deeply concerned with you personally? A
simple yes or no will suffice.
I'll have to take no answer as a big fat yes. You believe the supreme being
is deeply concerned with you personally. You're the ultimate name-dropper,
the ultimate hanger-on.
Y' know, A person would be considered pathetic if he went around crowing
that he was a personal friend of George Clooney, Michael Jackson, and
Madonna, but refused to offer any evidence to that effect. People would
think he was just trying to puff himself up by pretending he was associated
with all these famous people. But when the same guy pulls the same ***** and
crows about his personal relationship with a universe-spanning omnipotent
entity, suddenly it seems everyone buys into it.
Sheesh!
Iimagine that Gary would agree that we're probably doing the best we
can
with what the mindless process of evolution left us with. Yeah,
that's
just
dripping with arrogance.
Well? Is it?
I'll take that as a big fat no.
Plus the Christians assert we have free will. Now they'll say the
god
character gave it to us but they'll also insist that what we do with
it
is
OUR OWN CHOICE. So if that is the case, then we DO define our own
nature
by
our moral choices. YOU'RE denying the supposed gift of free will
that
the
god character went to such pains to give us. YOU'RE the one
supposedly
in
trouble.
"I think you might rethink your position."
Not at all, freewill is a gift and the choice to see mercy and apply
it
is
a
gift.
No, the freewill is supposedly a gift, but the mercy thing is a choice.
If
it was a gift then it doesn't come from you and cannot be your choice,
which
kinda robs freewill of any purpose.
I guess that Randy Story now agrees that if the mercy thing is a gift, then
free will is robbed of any purpose.
I am acting in humility by acknowledgement of honoring the giver of
these gifts.
No, you're indulging in the conceit that you cannot be wrong as to what
god,
if any, is in charge.
No answer? I can only assume then that Randy Story agrees that he is
indulging in the conceit that he cannot be wrong about which god, if any, is
in charge.
We do define our moral nature by our choices but it is also a
choice to not only see the gift of being good or mercyful
but seeing the giver of that gift.
If being good and mercyful is a gift, then you are admitting that you
are
not naturally good or mercyful, and that goodness and mercy are foreign
to
your nature.
I guess Randy Story agrees that he has no goodness or mercy in him, and that
any he displays is the result of a foreign grant from an outside source.
Keep your children away from him.
That's actually not as much a surprise to us as you might think.
Since you neither recognize the gift or
the giver you must claim all acts of goodness as flowing from your own
nature which of course is the ultimate act of usurping credit for what
is
given to you, the ultimate in arrogance & pride.
No. Since we don't recognize the god or the gift, we can't be guilty of
arrogance and pride because we don't believe we are usurping anything
whatsoever. We can only be guilty of arrogance and pride in this matter
if
we believe that we are usurping the gifts of your supposed god.
We don't, so we aren't.
But let me ask you a question: If you didn't have those supposed gifts
of
goodness and mercy, would you rather be behaving in a bad and mercyless
manner?
I can only assume that you don't answer this question because it would make
you look bad. I guess you agree that you would rather be behaving in a bad
and merciless manner, and the gifts of your god are the only thing holding
you in check.
You're a monster!
Ther is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What this means
of
course is that we all have a responsibility to not be ignorant of certain
truths.
No, you idiot, it means we have a responsibility to not be ignorant of
certain LAWS.
The truth of Gods existence is one such truth. Sorry!
But since it's not a law, it's irrelevant to this argument.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
04 Jan 2004 12:06:59 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
Ther is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What this means of
course is that we all have a responsibility to not be ignorant of certain
truths. The truth of Gods existence is one such truth. Sorry!
http://tinyurl.com/qg1e
http://tinyurl.com/4gby
http://tinyurl.com/4gbs
Your deity does not exist, Randy. Ignorance is no excuse. Sorry!
Regards,
Josef
To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, to know
that it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural does not and
cannot exist - all this is but the beginning of wisdom.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
04 Jan 2004 11:41:25 AM |
|
|
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a617792684ee2c3989764@206.172.150.13...
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
Ther is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What this
means of
course is that we all have a responsibility to not be ignorant of
certain
truths. The truth of Gods existence is one such truth. Sorry!
http://tinyurl.com/qg1e
http://tinyurl.com/4gby
http://tinyurl.com/4gbs
Your deity does not exist, Randy. Ignorance is no excuse. Sorry!
Regards,
Josef
Josef, what are you smoking. I read each of the articles.
1. Idealism may have influenced Augustine because he was a Platonist but
most Christians do not believe that the natural world is evil. It can not be
as it is a creation of God. What we believe is that the natural world is
being corrupted by evil and therefore not in the perfect state that God
created.
2. G.E Moore does not speak for all Christians. Good is not undefinable,
just as God is not undefinable. What we say is that no mere fact carries
with it a moral value, we say that moral judgement can only be made based on
the motive of the players and motive is not pure fact. Example: two people
having sex carries no moral judgement by just this fact alone, there is
something more, are both willing, is it rape, these are not derived without
knowing more then just the natural factual info of a particular action.
Judgements must be made based on fact & value together but no mere fact
carries value without the motive underlying it.
3. Christians claim to say moral values are based on God nature and
therefore have a supernatural source. This is based on the fact that
judgements that one action & motive has a higher value then another. If we
can judge that one thing is better then another then we must have some idea
of what is best or good. Of course ultimate goodness can be no other then
God himself. We all have an idea of perfection, yet none of us has ever seen
perfection. This idea and others comes from beyond us and force themselves
upon us as a means of trying to get us to look up and acknowledge God. This
is the evidence you guys always are looking for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
04 Jan 2004 02:03:22 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a617792684ee2c3989764@206.172.150.13...
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
Ther is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What this
means of
course is that we all have a responsibility to not be ignorant of
certain
truths. The truth of Gods existence is one such truth. Sorry!
http://tinyurl.com/qg1e
http://tinyurl.com/4gby
http://tinyurl.com/4gbs
Your deity does not exist, Randy. Ignorance is no excuse. Sorry!
....
Josef, what are you smoking.
Nothing, Randy. Maybe you wanna share? That might help me see things
your way.
I read each of the articles.
If so, then very poorly. You obviously haven't understood the material,
as we shall see.
1. Idealism may have influenced Augustine because he was a Platonist but
most Christians do not believe that the natural world is evil. It can not be
as it is a creation of God. What we believe is that the natural world is
being corrupted by evil and therefore not in the perfect state that God
created.
The article on Idealism makes no mention of evil, so your statement
above is irrelevant. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate the
existence of this deity of yours.
2. G.E Moore does not speak for all Christians.
Nor do you.
Good is not undefinable,
just as God is not undefinable.
I haven't claimed otherwise. You obviously have not understood the
material. Try reading it a few more times.
What we say is that no mere fact carries
with it a moral value, we say that moral judgement can only be made based on
the motive of the players and motive is not pure fact. Example: two people
having sex carries no moral judgement by just this fact alone, there is
something more, are both willing, is it rape, these are not derived without
knowing more then just the natural factual info of a particular action.
Judgements must be made based on fact & value together but no mere fact
carries value without the motive underlying it.
And how do you propose to establish motive, since it is "not pure fact"?
3. Christians claim to say moral values are based on God nature and
therefore have a supernatural source. This is based on the fact that
judgements that one action & motive has a higher value then another. If we
can judge that one thing is better then another then we must have some idea
of what is best or good. Of course ultimate goodness can be no other then
God himself.
Please demonstrate that this deity of yours exists.
We all have an idea of perfection, yet none of us has ever seen
perfection. This idea and others comes from beyond us and force themselves
upon us as a means of trying to get us to look up and acknowledge God.
Pure speculation.
This
is the evidence you guys always are looking for.
Nope. It is purely wishful thinking on your part, and you clearly cannot
demonstrate otherwise.
Regards,
Josef
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need
for illusion is deep.
-- Saul Bellow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 09:32:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:22:04 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
Not at all, freewill is a gift and the choice to see mercy and apply it is a
gift. I am acting in humility by acknowledgement of honoring the giver of
these gifts. We do define our moral nature by our choices but it is also a
choice to not only see the gift of being good or mercyful
but seeing the giver of that gift. Since you neither recognize the gift or
the giver you must claim all acts of goodness as flowing from your own
nature which of course is the ultimate act of usurping credit for what is
given to you, the ultimate in arrogance & pride.
What you've just said is that we get freewill, but only about
recognizing that god gave it to us.
Seems pretty limited in nature.
So what good things did God make you do today?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave H." |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 02:25:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed. Second, your arrogance
about
your own good nature is enlightening. What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the
utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Why are you trying to mess up a person who obviously is very happy in
their personal decisions?
Is *that* what your religion is about?
"Dum dum-dum dum dum..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 05:47:48 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vve6q8jet1k5b8@corp.supernews.com>...
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60cddbb81b2871989cc4@news.midco.net...
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed. Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening. What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
No, Randy. It's your arrogance which is enlightening. Unfathomable,
the self-righteousness - judging someone's attitude as "the utmost in
sinful behavior" based upon no more than *your* "what if" scenario.
But to your first objection, I might easily counter with a question:
"Which god?" Or better still: "Which version of which god?" I might
also suggest other reasonable objections to Pascal's Wager, which Gary
has decided to accept, but I'm fairly certain that they would fall
upon blinded eyes and a "fundamentalized" mind.
*bogie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 07:38:29 PM |
|
|
bogie, typed...
But to your first objection, I might easily counter with a question:
"Which god?" Or better still: "Which version of which god?" I might
also suggest other reasonable objections to Pascal's Wager, which Gary
has decided to accept, but I'm fairly certain that they would fall
upon blinded eyes and a "fundamentalized" mind.
Ummm... just to be clear, how did I accept Pascals wager?
I said (or at least tried to say) I think if there is a God, he will
know who is good or bad by ones actual deeds. Not by him selfishly
demanding that one worship him as THE caveat for entrance into heaven...
which seems idiotic to me. Only an evil God would have such a litmus
test. Who wants to spend eternity with an evil God?
I am undecided if there is or ever was a God (considering there is no
evidence either way)... thus it would be a little difficult to accept,
reject or worship him.
BTW, I think where some atheists/agnostics get in trouble is by acting
like people of faith are imbeciles, and I find myself doing the same at
times.
Nobody knows if what they believe is true or not.
Gary
.
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 07:54:31 PM |
|
|
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a612a8cc14920e3989cc8@news.midco.net...
bogie, typed...
But to your first objection, I might easily counter with a question:
"Which god?" Or better still: "Which version of which god?" I might
also suggest other reasonable objections to Pascal's Wager, which Gary
has decided to accept, but I'm fairly certain that they would fall
upon blinded eyes and a "fundamentalized" mind.
Ummm... just to be clear, how did I accept Pascals wager?
I said (or at least tried to say) I think if there is a God, he will
know who is good or bad by ones actual deeds. Not by him selfishly
demanding that one worship him as THE caveat for entrance into heaven...
which seems idiotic to me. Only an evil God would have such a litmus
test. Who wants to spend eternity with an evil God?
I am undecided if there is or ever was a God (considering there is no
evidence either way)... thus it would be a little difficult to accept,
reject or worship him.
BTW, I think where some atheists/agnostics get in trouble is by acting
like people of faith are imbeciles, and I find myself doing the same at
times.
Nobody knows if what they believe is true or not.
Gary
Quite right. Apologies if I mis-read your message.
When you said . . .
"I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything," . . . I was reminded immediately
of the essence of Pascal's Wager, and it appeared to me that you were
calling his bluff.
I certainly didn't mean that you had accepted the Wager as valid.
*bogie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 04:46:17 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side.
LOL !
Pascal would cringe. So would your high school English teacher,
assuming you went to high school.
The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Or it is eternal and uncaused.
Or the cause was something other than a deity.
Or the universe is finite and uncaused.
Or the cause was Brahma, or Yingarna, or Vili, or Bagadjimbiri, or ...
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening.
It's good that you have finally seen some enlightenment.
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character.
What if it is a gift from Vishnu?
If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior.
Really? Worse than mass genocide?
What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work.
Good point. It's about as ridiculous as those who survive an accident
and then claim it was due to divine intervention.
I think you might rethink your position.
I think you can start by demonstrating the existence of your deity.
Regards,
Josef
For as it is the chief concern of wise men to retrench the evils of life
by the reasonings of philosophy, it is the employment of fools to
multiply them by the sentiments of superstition.
-- Joseph Addison
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 06:14:18 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:40:26 -0800, a stranger
called by some "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side. The universe had a
cause beyond it since it is finite & composed.
Since when? Randy, unless you are ready to publish this amazing
conclusion in the astronomy press, i suggest that you keep quiet about
things you don't know about.
Observationally, the universe is about 34 billion light years across.
As for what's beyond that, we don't know. We might actually live in
an infinite void, and our entire universe is simply a mote it it.
Second, your arrogance about
your own good nature is enlightening. What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character.
Then I'm going to ***** on God's leg in thanks for the gift of cancer.
Randy, I am who I am because of how I was raied, the times I've lived
through, and my own biochemistry. Had I not enlisted and gone to
college right our of high school, I'd be a very different person. Sky
pixies have nothing to do with it.
If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Except that you can show that the million dollars came not from hard
work, but as a gift or winnings in a lottery. There is no such
evidence for God.
There is, however, evidence that our natures are tied up in the mass
of neurons sitting between our ears.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F286233F6
Is the classic example. Trauma to the frontal lobes can completely
change the personality. Medication can also change us (during my
cancer treatment, I was on the steroid Prednisone at a pretty high
dosage. My wife decided I was having PMS. My moods were all over the
place. I also, oddly, ate salsa right out of the jar. I could not
get enough.)
So who were are is tied up with the pattern of cells in our brains and
how they fire. Change that enough, and the personality changes.
So much for a deity.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 05:22:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:40:26 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
posted to alt.atheism:
First, to play the odds in this case is on Gods side.
Since there is an infinity of possible gods, the odds that your god is
"the one" are very close to negative infinity - but not quite that
good.
The universe had a cause
Proof? Oh, that's right, there is none. It's just your wish.
What if all we have, is a gift from
God, our life, our rationality even our own *good* character. If this is
true then to use this gift of goodness and claim it as our own is the utmost
in sinful behavior. What would you think of someone who was *given* a
million dollars and then when asked where he got it he claimed it was his
own hard work. I think you might rethink your position.
Pascal's Wager is still Pascal's Wager, no matter how you reword it.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: My Sunday morning sermon: |
03 Jan 2004 01:57:03 PM |
|
|
*********Posting on top***************
That was a great episode.
Gary DeWaay wrote:
RELIGION, OR THE LACK THERE OF
My brother is a preacher in a Assemblies of God church, and over
Thanksgiving he was on the phone with someone for like an hour.
I was upstairs, and overheard parts of the conversation, and asked his
wife "is he really arguing dogma on Thanksgiving night?"
She said that he was talking to this gal that she characterized as a
"tortured soul" that used to be the church secretary, but moved down
south, and got involved in a different church. He was in the continuous
process of instructing her that what she was being taught now was "false
doctrine"... which apparently was driving her crazy enough to call my
brother during obvious family time on Thanksgiving.
I was reminded of a recent episode of "South Park" where they made fun
of how idiotic the Mormon religion was, but in the end, the little kid
that was raised in the Mormon religion replied to some ribbing about it
by saying something like this... "You know, a lot of it doesn't make
sense to me either, and it does seem kinda strange, but it's what my
family believes in, and it makes us happy and unified... and that's all
that really matters." The kids that he told this to were impressed and
from then on thought he was pretty cool.
Ahh... if only the wisdom of some kids in a cartoon were the wisdom of
all.
If only. Unfortunately, "Christians" in particular have to push their
beliefs on *everybody.*
Every denomination and religion seems to be in a contest in the "great
truth and happiness" sweepstakes... and accept no others, same as they
are threatened by the notion of atheism. Other peoples "truth" seems a
threat to them, meaning to be accepting of others "truth" would be
admitting the "truth" they believe in is not the true truth.... or some
damn thing. Which seems idiotic to me from the outside looking in,
considering it is all just simple faith (or lack there of) to begin
with. How can one faith be superior to another faith? It's like two
husbands arguing whose love for their wife is grander. Everyone's idea
of love is unique and special... and people that aren't in love aren't
necessarily missing anything, because love can also lead to bad things,
and there are plenty of happy and content people that are not in love.
Why is this different than faith? Love and faith are both things that
only exist in the mind.
Personally, I just seek happiness from within and the people and things
around me... I don't need dogma and structure to accomplish this. I
don't need religion to simply treat people the same way I want to be
treated. It seems natural to me. If I had kids, that's what I would
teach them.
Amen. ;-)
I'll accept people of all or any religion as long as they don't bother
me about it, nor change laws forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
If my government wanted to ban religion, I would fight against it. If
my government wanted to support only one religion, I'd fight that also.
I'll take my chances at death that if there is a true and understanding,
compassionate God; he would think that my attitude is pretty cool.
I like my odds.
If there is no God, I am not out anything.
A God that is insecure enough to torture me in afterlife if I don't
worship him is not something I think exists. It makes no sense.
The odds seem slim.
Gary DeWaay
--
Andres64
a.a. #1624
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we
fall.
- Confucius
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
