| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Smith Computer" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 09:03:59 AM |
| Object: |
Questions from Enkidu |
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
You have attempted an answer to your question but in error. The Creator is
willing and able, yet allows evil to preside upon the earth to show the
entire universe that "the resister" whose name is satan, lied when he
accused the Creator of holding something good from mankind, namely the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance is short lived however, when
you consider that in a very short while, the entire universe will recognize
that truth and evil will be done away with, leaving a clean populous to
reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Evil came into the world by the committing of sin, which means to miss the
mark. The first sin, was committed by the original pair and allows evil to
preside upon the earth to show the entire universe that "the resister" whose
name is satan, lied when he accused the Creator of holding something good
from mankind, namely the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance
is short lived however, when you consider that in a very short while, the
entire universe will recognize that truth and evil will be done away with,
leaving a clean populous to reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
We call him the Creator for he created all good things. We call him God ,
for that is a title which describes him. We, in English, use the name
Jehovah, for that is the accepted translation of the letters YHWH, which are
the earliest indication of his name.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by Christians
in their ministry.-1Co 15:32. "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil
useful habits. 34 Wake up to soberness in a righteous way and do not
practice sin, for some are without knowledge of God. I am speaking to move
YOU to shame."
For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes
The Smitty
.
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
17 Jan 2005 10:08:18 AM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
"Olrik"
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners. You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote rules in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick, a con or
outright ignore it....just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
I guess it would depend on the "miracle".
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
The Smitty
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
18 Jan 2005 01:13:36 AM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
"Olrik"
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners. You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote rules in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick, a con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now. If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on my knees and
grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please arrange such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and your father told
you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was wrong.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from accepting
reality.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name. Isn't that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
18 Jan 2005 10:04:06 AM |
|
|
"bob young" <
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always
what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is
alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners.
You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote rules
in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present
himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick, a
con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now.
.....And that is what you call it, if you read about it in the past.
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on my
knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please arrange
such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel. That aside, you would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception. You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw, so how can you believe in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and your father
told you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was wrong.
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted. Most of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called" reality.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more, and the same is true with science,
evolution, and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name. Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek, and yield place for, in my mind and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
18 Jan 2005 11:22:03 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
"bob young" <
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always
what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is
alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners.
You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote rules
in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present
himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick, a
con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now.
....And that is what you call it, if you read about it in the past.
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on my
knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please arrange
such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel. That aside, you would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception. You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw, so how can you believe in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
10 out of 10 for 'religious nonsense'
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and your father
told you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was wrong.
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted. Most of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called" reality.
Then you are either [1] a very small minority or [2] a liar.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more, and the same is true with science,
evolution, and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
You write this rubbish tongue in cheek of course, realising as you do there is
no harm in the opther subjects mentioned - the harm is being forced to follow a
deity, be it a hindu one, a Islamic one, a Tin Hau one a Chritian one that uis
purly imaginary and has no foundation in FACT. FACTS can be appied to all the
others, not your sky pixies.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name. Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek, and yield place for, in my mind and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
Yes, one of the pet hates of atheists is that religions, in part, are and
always have been, a pet means of 'empowerment'
Bob
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward
those who are not regarded as members of the herd. Neither a man nor a crowd
nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the
influence of a great fear.
[Bertrand Russell]_
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 07:46:00 AM |
|
|
"bob young"
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always
what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a
habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is
alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair
game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners.
You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by
themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote
rules
in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present
himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick,
a
con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now.
....And that is what you call it, if you read about it in the past.
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on my
knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please
arrange
such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that
you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel. That aside, you
would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception.
You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw, so how can you believe
in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
10 out of 10 for 'religious nonsense'
Your opinion is noted.
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a
god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and your
father
told you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was
wrong.
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted. Most
of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called" reality.
Then you are either [1] a very small minority or [2] a liar.
I am neither.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in mythology
that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more, and the same is true with science,
evolution, and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
You write this rubbish tongue in cheek of course, realising as you do
there is
no harm in the opther subjects mentioned - the harm is being forced to
follow a
deity, be it a hindu one, a Islamic one, a Tin Hau one a Chritian one that
uis
purly imaginary and has no foundation in FACT. FACTS can be appied to all
the others, not your sky pixies.
I know nothing of sky pixies, and false teachings are rampant in this world.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name.
Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek, and yield place for, in my mind
and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
Yes, one of the pet hates of atheists is that religions, in part, are and
always have been, a pet means of 'empowerment'
Truth should empower all people.
The Encyclopędia Britannica states that man's brain "is endowed with
considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person's
lifetime
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 11:13:17 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
"bob young"
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is always
what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a
habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is
alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're fair
game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no manners.
You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by
themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote
rules
in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to present
himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a trick,
a
con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now.
....And that is what you call it, if you read about it in the past.
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on my
knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please
arrange
such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that
you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel. That aside, you
would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception.
You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw, so how can you believe
in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
10 out of 10 for 'religious nonsense'
Your opinion is noted.
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a
god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and your
father
told you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was
wrong.
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted. Most
of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called" reality.
Then you are either [1] a very small minority or [2] a liar.
I am neither.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in mythology
that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more, and the same is true with science,
evolution, and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
You write this rubbish tongue in cheek of course, realising as you do
there is
no harm in the opther subjects mentioned - the harm is being forced to
follow a
deity, be it a hindu one, a Islamic one, a Tin Hau one a Chritian one that
uis
purly imaginary and has no foundation in FACT. FACTS can be appied to all
the others, not your sky pixies.
I know nothing of sky pixies, and false teachings are rampant in this world.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name.
Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek, and yield place for, in my mind
and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
Yes, one of the pet hates of atheists is that religions, in part, are and
always have been, a pet means of 'empowerment'
Truth should empower all people.
Try some then - just look outside yuor window
The Encyclopędia Britannica states that man's brain "is endowed with
considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person's
lifetime
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
21 Jan 2005 08:10:36 AM |
|
|
"bob young" <
I do not recommend that we call 'em names since that is
always
what
they
do when pushed into a corner trying to justify imaginary
gods
Thanks bob, however I can handle this one. This one has a
habit of
making accusations when he has nothing of interest to say.
What accusations? Just remarks based on your posts. This is
alt.atheism.
If you proselytize (which is against our policy), you're
fair
game.
Anyway. You believe in an old book; we don't. End of story.
Those rules seem to have been made by those who have no
manners.
You
believe there is no God, so you are fair game. End of
Story.
LOL! We recognize xian fundies by their lack of respect for
rules.
BTW, as a general consensus, atheists like for people like you
to
present evidence for your claims. Old books don't count by
themselves.
Those with the truth recognize most atheists as ones who promote
rules
in
place of reasoning and manners. Even if the Christ were to
present
himself
to you and perform some miracle for you, you would call it a
trick,
a
con or
outright ignore it....
Wrong. That is what we call it now.
....And that is what you call it, if you read about it in the past.
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on
my
knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please
arrange
such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such
that
you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel. That aside,
you
would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some
deception.
You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw, so how can you
believe
in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
10 out of 10 for 'religious nonsense'
Your opinion is noted.
just like you do most other things presented here. So
your call for evidence is without consequence in my eyes.
Yes, because they are firmly closed due to an inbuilt desire for a
god, no
doubt going back to the time when you were a few years old and
your
father
told you about this god, you cannot bring yourself to admit he was
wrong.
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted.
Most
of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth
personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called"
reality.
Then you are either [1] a very small minority or [2] a liar.
I am neither.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology
that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more, and the same is true with science,
evolution, and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which
change
daily.
You write this rubbish tongue in cheek of course, realising as you do
there is
no harm in the opther subjects mentioned - the harm is being forced to
follow a
deity, be it a hindu one, a Islamic one, a Tin Hau one a Chritian one
that
uis
purly imaginary and has no foundation in FACT. FACTS can be appied to
all
the others, not your sky pixies.
I know nothing of sky pixies, and false teachings are rampant in this
world.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you have no right to use His name.
Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do
not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy
and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek, and yield place for, in my
mind
and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
Yes, one of the pet hates of atheists is that religions, in part, are
and
always have been, a pet means of 'empowerment'
Truth should empower all people.
Try some then - just look outside yuor window
OK. It is good you agree.
The Encyclopędia Britannica states that man's brain "is endowed with
considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person's
lifetime. Now just why, do you think that is?
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 06:29:28 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
"bob young" <
[...]
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on
my knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please
arrange such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that
you
saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel.
Whoa, whoa. Below you say "Most of what learned at
an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible" and yet what you say here tends to
throw that into question. There are at least two accounts
in the Bible where mere mortals saw God's face and didn't
die: "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man speaks to his friend..."--Ex. 33:11 is one of them.
I'll let you find the other one.
That aside, you would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception.
I guess it makes it easier if you get to tell the other
person what he would "really" do, no evidence needed.
But if you are going to do that, why not just declare
victory and move on? If you don't need to convince
anyone of anything--if all you have to do is to
proclaim what is or is not true--then what is it that
you want from your correspondent?
You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw,
How do you know "that many saw" when none of the
Gospels were written while Jesus was supposed to be
alive?
so how can you believe in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
Why would you think God would have a problem
convincing people he is god?
[...]
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted.
Most of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth
personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called"
reality.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more,
Wow.
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
So children shouldn't be taught science, huh, according
to you. Interesting.
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to change daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you hav e no right to use His name.
Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do
not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago you thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
and yield place for, in my mind and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 08:20:12 AM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net
[...]
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall on
my knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So please
arrange such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such that
you saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel.
Whoa, whoa. Below you say "Most of what learned at
an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible" and yet what you say here tends to
throw that into question. There are at least two accounts
in the Bible where mere mortals saw God's face and didn't
die: "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man speaks to his friend..."--Ex. 33:11 is one of them.
I'll let you find the other one.
"Face to face" may denote intimate association or communication. Thus, Moses
was privileged to have such a close relationship with God and be used so
powerfully by God that he is referred to as a prophet "whom Jehovah knew
face to face." (De 34:10-12) While it is said that Moses beheld "the
appearance of Jehovah" and that Jehovah spoke to him "mouth to mouth," yet
Moses never saw Jehovah's face literally. Rather, as the context shows, it
was God's speaking through angelic spokesmen to Moses in open, verbal
communication (instead of by visions or dreams) that gave the basis for such
expression. (Nu 12:6-8; Ex 33:20; Ac 7:35, 38; Ga 3:19; compare Ge 32:24-30;
Ho 12:3, 4.) Moses recalled to Israel that God spoke "face to face" with
them, since they heard the loud voice at Sinai, though none of them actually
saw Jehovah.-De 5:4; 4:11-15; Heb 12:19.
That aside, you would
still not believe, for you would attribute the act to some deception.
I guess it makes it easier if you get to tell the other
person what he would "really" do, no evidence needed.
But if you are going to do that, why not just declare
victory and move on? If you don't need to convince
anyone of anything--if all you have to do is to
proclaim what is or is not true--then what is it that
you want from your correspondent?
You interject in this thread with a great question, but you may not have
witnessed the many postings which demanded evidence and when presented was
dismissed without consideration. I have seen this type of response
previously so it is of no great concern, however it is indicative of the
state of mind of those who respond in kind.
You
do not believe even in the Christ, that many saw,
How do you know "that many saw" when none of the
Gospels were written while Jesus was supposed to be
alive?
The ones that wrote the Gospels did see him, along with those they indicated
did.
so how can you believe in
the one who sent him, whom you can not see?
Why would you think God would have a problem
convincing people he is god?
Because, without faith, it is impossible to please the Creator well.
[...]
Actually, I never knew my father or my mother, as I was adopted.
Most of
what learned at an early age has been overturned by an in depth
personal
study of the Bible, and testing those findings in "so called"
reality.
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
I coould not agree with you more,
Wow.
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
So children shouldn't be taught science, huh, according
to you. Interesting.
They should be taught what is actually known, and shown the difference
between what is truth and what is mere theory.
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to change daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
A new discovery here, a different level of measurement there, a new
perspective with plausible promise, or any of a hundred viewpoints which
subscribe to a particular agenda each tell our children a plethora of things
which later change.
Also, let the peace of the Christ control in YOUR hearts
Sorry, assuming He does exist, you hav e no right to use His name.
Isn't
that
what religion is all about - power to individuals?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I do
not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy and
falsehood. The truth is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago you thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
You will have no doubt already read the response which publishes the truth
in that matter. Truth is something that remains after all things that are
not the truth are removed. The truth is often that which is considered to
be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of
existence. It is that truth I continually strive toward to the point
fallible man is able.
and yield place for, in my mind and
heart, and it seems to me that truth does empower one.
Having great love for his creatures, God provides ample opportunity for them
to know him and his purposes.
The Smitty
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 07:05:43 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net
[...]
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall
on
my knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So
please
arrange such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such
that
you saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel.
Whoa, whoa. Below you say "Most of what learned at
an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible" and yet what you say here tends to
throw that into question. There are at least two accounts
in the Bible where mere mortals saw God's face and di dn't
die: "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man speaks to his friend..."--Ex. 33:11 is one of them.
I'll let you find the other one.
"Face to face" may denote intimate association or communication.
Thus, Moses
was privilege d to have such a close relationship with God and be
used so
powerfully by God that he is referred to as a prophet "whom Jehovah
knew
face to face." (De 34:10-12) While it is said that Moses beheld "the
appearance of Jehovah" and that Jehovah spoke t o him "mouth to
mouth," yet
Moses never saw Jehovah's face literally.
Interesting assertion. But that isn't what the Bible
says. BTW are you quoting the above without
attribution?
Rather, as the context shows,
Where? I'm talking about Exodus 33:11.
it
was God's speaking through angelic spokesmen to Moses in open, verbal
communication (instead of by visions or dreams) that gave the basis
for such
expression.
Who sez so?
(Nu 12:6-8; Ex 33:20; Ac 7:35, 38; Ga 3:19; compare Ge 32:24-30;
Ho 12:3, 4.)
I'm talking about Exodus 33:11.
Moses recalled to Israel that God spoke "face to face" with
them, since they heard the loud voice at Sinai, though none of them
actually
saw Jehovah.-De 5:4; 4:11-15; Heb 12:19.
You've made this assertion 3 times now but not once
did you offer any evidence that your assertion is true.
Why is that?
Contd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
21 Jan 2005 08:23:25 AM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net>
[...]
If a god stood before me and did a couple
of miracles, disappeared and then reappeared again I would fall
on
my knees
and grovel for all I was worth and admit I was wrong. So
please
arrange such a
meeting as soon as you can, OK
According to the Word, if the Creator stood in front of you such
that
you saw his face, you would be dead and unable to grovel.
Whoa, whoa. Below you say "Most of what learned at
an early age has been overturned by an in depth personal
study of the Bible" and yet what you say here tends to
throw that into question. There are at least two accounts
in the Bible where mere mortals saw God's face and di dn't
die: "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man speaks to his friend..."--Ex. 33:11 is one of them.
I'll let you find the other one.
"Face to face" may denote intimate association or communication.
Thus, Moses
was privilege d to have such a close relationship with God and be
used so
powerfully by God that he is referred to as a prophet "whom Jehovah
knew
face to face." (De 34:10-12) While it is said that Moses beheld "the
appearance of Jehovah" and that Jehovah spoke t o him "mouth to
mouth," yet
Moses never saw Jehovah's face literally.
Interesting assertion. But that isn't what the Bible
says. BTW are you quoting the above without
attribution?
Rather, as the context shows,
Where? I'm talking about Exodus 33:11.
You would have to know a great deal more about the Bible than you do, in
order to ascertain the correct understanding and to apply these scriptures
with accuracy.
it
was God's speaking through angelic spokesmen to Moses in open, verbal
communication (instead of by visions or dreams) that gave the basis
for such
expression.
Who sez so?
A great many Bible scholars and people who know the Bible accurately.
(Nu 12:6-8; Ex 33:20; Ac 7:35, 38; Ga 3:19; compare Ge 32:24-30;
Ho 12:3, 4.)
I'm talking about Exodus 33:11.
Jehovah entrusted Moses 'with all His house,' using Moses as His intimate
representative in organizing the nation. The later prophets simply continued
to build on the foundation that had been laid through Moses. Although God
had in the past spoken through angels to faithful men such as Noah and
Abraham, and He had audibly conveyed the Ten Commandments to the entire
nation by his angel on a single occasion, Jehovah spoke with Moses "mouth to
mouth" or "face to face, just as a man would speak to his fellow." (Ex.
33:9-11) Not merely on one or two occasions, but repeatedly Jehovah spoke to
Moses, and Moses, in turn, talked to God, presenting problems for His
direction and expressing his own feelings, and Jehovah answered him by his
angel. No others of the prophets enjoyed such a continuous two-way
conversational communication with God as Moses did in his capacity of
mediator or go-between.-Deut. 34:10.
Jehovah, by means of his angel on Mount Horeb, said to Moses: "You are not
able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." (Ex. 33:20)
So, when Deuteronomy 34:10 speaks of "Moses, whom Jehovah knew face to
face," it could never mean that Moses saw Jehovah's very own face or person.
And as the mouth is a part of the face, then when Jehovah said, "Mouth to
mouth I speak to him," it could not mean that Moses saw God's face or was in
direct, immediate contact with God. He merely had personal audience with
God, by means of angels, who, as Jesus said in Matthew 18:10, "always [at
necessary times] behold the face of my Father who is in heaven."
The manner in which Jehovah dealt with Moses was so impressive that it was
as if Moses actually had beheld God with his own eyes, instead of merely
having a mental vision or a dream in which he heard God speak, which was the
usual way in which God communicated with his prophets. Jehovah was never
actually seen by Moses, and it was through angels that God spoke to him, but
Jehovah's dealings with Moses were so real that Moses reacted as if he had
seen "the One who is invisible." (Heb. 11:27) And the way in which the
description was written down sounded and read as if Moses had seen and heard
Jehovah God himself.
Moses recalled to Israel that God spoke "face to face" with
them, since they heard the loud voice at Sinai, though none of them
actually
saw Jehovah.-De 5:4; 4:11-15; Heb 12:19.
You've made this assertion 3 times now but not once
did you offer any evidence that your assertion is true.
Why is that?
Yes, I have posted evidence for you, so please become more civil, and read
it.
You must read the entire Bible in order for the truth to reveal itself, not
merely extract a portion of it. When one takes a matter out of context, then
the intelligence of that one is suspect.
Contd
By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he
continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 05:05:28 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
A great many Bible scholars and people who know the Bible accurately.
(Nu 12:6-8; Ex 33:20; Ac 7:35, 38; Ga 3:19; compare Ge 32:24-30;
Ho 12:3, 4.)
I'm talking about Exodus 33:11.
Jehovah entrusted Moses 'with all His house,' using Moses as His intimate
representative in organizing the nation. The later prophets simply
There is a problem with all of this. None of it happened.
All the claims of the OT have been debunked by archeaology. For example the
OT says Moses and
Joshua invaded Canaan and dstroyed many major cities. But all the cities so
mentioned were destroyed centuries before there could be a Moses.
Moses is said to have set out to Canaan from Zoar, a city not even founded
until centuries after a Moses could have existed. Moses is said to have
dealt with the kings of Moab, there was no Moab and no king there until
centuries later.
None of any of this happened.
It was a lie made up m,many centuries later by lying priests.
All of these things you are babbling about and desperately twisting did not
happen and archaeologists and historians have admitted this in print,in any
number of recent books.
There was no Egyptian captivity, no exodus, no Moses on themount with god,
no bloody invasion of Canaan. Its all fairy tales along the lines of Sinbad
thesailor.
So sitting there and telling us god did this and god meant that and all this
is so much nonsense.
There is no god, was no Moses, no exodus, no nothing.
You are repeating falasities that are dead and gone and over.
God is in the OT, a nasty, hate filled, savage, murderous, stuopid entity,
its nice to know it was all the figment of imagination of some not very
smart or moral liar priest. Its time for this particular lie that has kept
man evil and stupid 1900 years to die.
We can do better that this particularly stupid god and nest of ugly tall
tales.
continued to build on the foundation that had been laid through Moses.
Although God had in the past spoken through angels to faithful men such as
Noah and Abraham, and He had audibly conveyed the Ten Commandments to the
entire nation by his angel on a single occasion, Jehovah spoke with Moses
"mouth to mouth" or "face to face, just as a man would speak to his
fellow." (Ex. 33:9-11) Not merely on one or two occasions, but repeatedly
Jehovah spoke to Moses, and Moses, in turn, talked to God, presenting
problems for His direction and expressing his own feelings, and Jehovah
answered him by his angel. No others of the prophets enjoyed such a
continuous two-way conversational communication with God as Moses did in
his capacity of mediator or go-between.-Deut. 34:10.
Jehovah, by means of his angel on Mount Horeb, said to Moses: "You are not
able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." (Ex. 33:20)
So, when Deuteronomy 34:10 speaks of "Moses, whom Jehovah knew face to
face," it could never mean that Moses saw Jehovah's very own face or
person. And as the mouth is a part of the face, then when Jehovah said,
"Mouth to mouth I speak to him," it could not mean that Moses saw God's
face or was in direct, immediate contact with God. He merely had personal
audience with God, by means of angels, who, as Jesus said in Matthew
18:10, "always [at necessary times] behold the face of my Father who is in
heaven."
The manner in which Jehovah dealt with Moses was so impressive that it was
as if Moses actually had beheld God with his own eyes, instead of merely
having a mental vision or a dream in which he heard God speak, which was
the usual way in which God communicated with his prophets. Jehovah was
never actually seen by Moses, and it was through angels that God spoke to
him, but Jehovah's dealings with Moses were so real that Moses reacted as
if he had seen "the One who is invisible." (Heb. 11:27) And the way in
which the description was written down sounded and read as if Moses had
seen and heard Jehovah God himself.
Moses recalled to Israel that God spoke "face to face" with
them, since they heard the loud voice at Sinai, though none of them
actually
saw Jehovah.-De 5:4; 4:11-15; Heb 12:19.
You've made this assertion 3 times now but not once
did you offer any evidence that your assertion is true.
Why is that?
Yes, I have posted evidence for you, so please become more civil, and read
it.
You must read the entire Bible in order for the truth to reveal itself,
not merely extract a portion of it. When one takes a matter out of
context, then the intelligence of that one is suspect.
Contd
By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he
continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible
The Smitty
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
21 Jan 2005 11:29:01 AM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net
[...]
Bob Young:
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
Smith Computer:
I coould not agree with you more,
Del:
Wow.
Smith Computer:
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
[...]
Del:
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to change daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
Smith Computer:
A new discovery here, a different level of measurement there, a new
perspective with plausible promise, or any of a hundred viewpoints
which
subscribe to a particular agenda each tell our children a plethora of
things
which later change.
Ok.You say it is wrong to teach children this and
yet this is the reality: new information _is_
discovered which modifies what we know. This
undermines your implication that science is taught
as some sort of unchanging truth, since if it changes
daily as you say then it is obvious to everyone that
it isn't unchanging truth and no one is fooled --
if you were correct about how it is presented.
What is taught as science is presented as "here is
what we now know" along with the evidence for that
claim. Your implication that this is taught as
some unchanging dogma is a straw man. In fact
that is what religion does. So once again it seems
you wish to assert that what you oppose is no
better than what you profess or believe. Apparently
you cannot argue that what you have is superior and
so you want to drag the opposition down to the same
level. Thus, science is taught as dogma and atheism is a
religion, according to you. The immediate problem
with this is that you've offered little or no evidence
that this is accurate. It may be what you believe
but that isn't the same thing.
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I
do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy
and
falsehood.
You don't find it ironic that you (apparently) don't
think that what you believe is religion at the same time
you claim that evolution is? Isn't that a bit 1984ish-
-War is Peace, Love is Hate?
The truth is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago you thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
You will have no doubt already read the response which publishes the
truth
in that matter.
You seem to have a very loose definition for the word
"truth" here. I did see your assertions but I saw no
evidence that backed them up. You made _claims_
of evidence--about the context demonstrating your
point--but that is just another assertion until or
unless you show the context actually proving your
point.
Truth is something that remains after all things that are
not the truth are removed.
If you consider the truth as something that can never be
found to be untrue (let's call this "absolute truth")
then one can never know when he has found it.
Is it the absolute truth that there are 9 planets in
the solar system? To say "yes" is to make a
prediction about the future. That prediction is that
no new information will ever be discovered (indeed:
that such information doesn't exist) in the future
that will change what we now know. Clearly,
mankind is in no position to make such a claim.
Your desire for certainty in an uncertain world is
understandable but to claim to possess truth (as in
absolute truth) is simply unjustified. Even if one
has found it one can never be justifiably certain
that he has. All we have are degrees of certainty.
The truth is often that which is considered to
be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of
existence. It is that truth I continually strive toward to the point
fallible man is able.
"Strive toward" implies you have not yet found
it. Yet I believe that you have claimed to know
the truth here, at least in regard to some things,
more than once. Do correct me if I am wrong
about this. But if you have not so asserted then I
don't see how you can justify the claims you make,
typically without evidence and in no uncertain terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
21 Jan 2005 04:21:50 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net>
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him from
accepting
reality.
Smith Computer:
I coould not agree with you more,
Del:
Wow.
Smith Computer:
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
[...]
Del:
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to change daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
Smith Computer:
A new discovery here, a different level of measurement there, a new
perspective with plausible promise, or any of a hundred viewpoints
which
subscribe to a particular agenda each tell our children a plethora of
things
which later change.
Ok.You say it is wrong to teach children this and
yet this is the reality: new information _is_
discovered which modifies what we know. This
undermines your implication that science is taught
as some sort of unchanging truth, since if it changes
daily as you say then it is obvious to everyone that
it isn't unchanging truth and no one is fooled --
if you were correct about how it is presented.
It is not wrong to teach children science, it is wrong to assert a theory as
fact.
What is taught as science is presented as "here is
what we now know" along with the evidence for that
claim. Your implication that this is taught as
some unchanging dogma is a straw man. In fact
that is what religion does. So once again it seems
you wish to assert that what you oppose is no
better than what you profess or believe. Apparently
you cannot argue that what you have is superior and
so you want to drag the opposition down to the same
level. Thus, science is taught as dogma and atheism is a
religion, according to you. The immediate problem
with this is that you've offered little or no evidence
that this is accurate. It may be what you believe
but that isn't the same thing.
The schools that I have attended, did not say the word "now".
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a question. I
do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of inconsistancy
and
falsehood.
You don't find it ironic that you (apparently) don't
think that what you believe is religion at the same time
you claim that evolution is? Isn't that a bit 1984ish-
-War is Peace, Love is Hate?
I do not know if the relative term "religion" can be applied to evolution,
however to those in the scientific community, the ardor I see is
unmistakable.
The truth is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago you thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
I think evidence is important, I just do not think that it is required in
all instances.
You will have no doubt already read the response which publishes the
truth
in that matter.
You seem to have a very loose definition for the word
"truth" here. I did see your assertions but I saw no
evidence that backed them up. You made _claims_
of evidence--about the context demonstrating your
point--but that is just another assertion until or
unless you show the context actually proving your
point.
Truth is not loose by any stretch of the word. The truth may be relative to
what science calls absolute truth, but again I iterate: The truth I am
speaking about and pursue is the truth which stems from the study and
research associated with the Creator by means of his word and the reflection
of those findings by means of the reality we enjoy as humans.
Truth is something that remains after all things that are
not the truth are removed.
If you consider the truth as something that can never be
found to be untrue (let's call this "absolute truth")
then one can never know when he has found it.
Is it the absolute truth that there are 9 planets in
the solar system? To say "yes" is to make a
prediction about the future. That prediction is that
no new information will ever be discovered (indeed:
that such information doesn't exist) in the future
that will change what we now know. Clearly,
mankind is in no position to make such a claim.
Your desire for certainty in an uncertain world is
understandable but to claim to possess truth (as in
absolute truth) is simply unjustified. Even if one
has found it one can never be justifiably certain
that he has. All we have are degrees of certainty.
That is fairly obvious and we agree to an extent. When I claim to have the
truth, I have and continue to clarify this truth as a departure from the
false religions of the world.
The truth is often that which is considered to
be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of
existence. It is that truth I continually strive toward to the point
fallible man is able.
"Strive toward" implies you have not yet found
it. Yet I believe that you have claimed to know
the truth here, at least in regard to some things,
more than once. Do correct me if I am wrong
about this. But if you have not so asserted then I
don't see how you can justify the claims you make,
typically without evidence and in no uncertain terms.
No one has the absolute truth as stated above. We strive toward the
absolute truth however the best we can achieve is the relative truth as
distinguished from those things we can prove as false.
May YOU people have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and
[the] Lord Jesus Christ
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
22 Jan 2005 01:16:22 AM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net>
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him
from
accepting
real ity.
Smith Computer:
I coould not agree with you more,
Del:
Wow.
Smith Computer:
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
[...]
Del:
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to cha nge daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
Smith Computer:
A new discovery here, a different level of measurement there, a
new
perspective with plausible promise, or any of a hundred
viewpoints
which
subscr ibe to a particular agenda each tell our children a
plethora of
things
which later change.
Ok.You say it is wrong to teach children this and
yet this is the reality: new information _is_
discovered which modifies what we know. Th is
undermines your implication that science is taught
as some sort of unchanging truth, since if it changes
daily as you say then it is obvious to everyone that
it isn't unchanging truth and no one is fooled --
if you were correct abou t how it is presented.
It is not wrong to teach children science, it is wrong to assert a
theory as
fact.
That's silly. Theory isn't taught as fact. Stephen J. Gould
addresses this in my previous post. Evolution is a fact.
That is, evolution is observed to happen. Evolution is
also a theory--the theory explaining the fact of evolution.
When there are disagreements in science about evolution it
is about the theory, not the fact.
What is taught as science is presented as "here is
what we now know" along with the evidence for that
claim. Your implication that this is taught as
some unchanging dogma is a straw man. In fact
that is what religion does. So once again it seems
you wish to assert that what you oppose is no
better than what you profess or believe. Apparently
you cannot argue that what you have is superior and
so you want to drag the opposition down to the same
level. Thus, science is taught as dogma and atheism is a
religion, according to you. The immediate problem
with this is that you've offered little o r no evidence
that this is accurate. It may be what you believe
but that isn't the same thing.
The schools that I have attended, did not say the word "now".
And when was this?
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a
question. I
do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of
inconsistancy
and
falsehood.
You don't find it ironic that you (apparently) don't
think that what you believe is religion at the same time
you claim that evolution is? Isn't that a bit 1984ish-
-War is Peace, Love is Hate?
I do not know if the relative term "religion" can be applied to
evolution,
however to those in the scientific community, the ardor I see is
unmistakable.
"unmistakable?" Well you aren't exactly a non-partisan
observer, are you? This is why evidence is important,
rather than 2 people simply asserting beliefs back and forth
as if that were evidence.
The trut h is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago yo u thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
I think evidence is important, I just do not think that it is
required in
all instances.
Obviously it isn't required in all instances.
You will have no doubt already read the response which publishes
the
tru th
in that matter.
You seem to have a very loose definition for the word
"truth" here. I did see your assertions but I saw no
evidence that backed them up. You made _claims_
of evidence--about the context demonstrating your
point--but that is just another assertion until or
unless you show the context actually proving your
point.
Truth is not loose by any stretch of the word.
I didn't say it was.
The truth may be relative to
what science calls absolute truth,
Science doesn't call anything "absolute truth"! That
was me.
but again I iterate: The truth I am
speaking about and pursue is the truth which stems from the study and
research associated with the Creator by means of his word and the
reflection
of those findings by means of the reality we enjoy as humans.
Then you use the word in a unique way that would not
be recognized by nearly 100% of people who know
what the word means What's the point of doing that? And
you should be aware that simply pinning the label "truth"
onto something does not make that label "true."
Truth is something that remains after all things that are
not the truth are removed.
If you consider the truth as something that can never be
found to be untrue (let's call this "absolute truth")
then one can never know when he has found it.
Is it the absolute truth that there are 9 planets in
the solar system? To say "yes" is to make a
prediction about the future. That prediction is that
no new information will ever be discovered (indeed:
that such information doesn't exist) in the future
that will change what we now know. Clearly,
mankind is in no position to make such a claim.
Your desire for certainty in an uncertain world is
understandable but to claim to possess truth (as in
absolute truth) is simply unjustified. Even if one
has found it one can never be justifiably certain
that he has. All we have are degrees of certainty.
That is fairly obvious and we agree to an extent.
Oh you'd be surprised at how unobvious this is to some
people.
When I claim to have the
truth, I have and continue to clarify this truth as a departure from
the
false religions of the world.
The truth is often that which is considered to
be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value
of
existence. It is that truth I continually strive to ward to the
point
fallible man is able.
"Strive toward" implies you have not yet found
it. Yet I believe that you have claimed to know
the truth here, at least in regard to some things,
more than once. Do correct me if I am wrong
about this. But if you have not so asserted then I
don't see how you can justify the claims you make,
typically without evidence and in no uncertain terms.
No one has the absolute truth as stated above. We strive toward the
absolute truth however the best we can achieve is the relative truth
as
distinguished from those things we can prove as false.
May YOU people have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father
and
[the] Lord Jesus Christ
Gee, now you judge me undeserved? And "you people"?
My goodness!
!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
22 Jan 2005 08:41:11 AM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net>
It IS wrong to involve any child below the age of eleven in
mythology that
could effect him for the rest of his life and prevent him
from
accepting
real ity.
Smith Computer:
I coould not agree with you more,
Del:
Wow.
Smith Computer:
and the same is true with science,
evolution,
and a ton of other teachings taught as truth but which change
daily.
[...]
Del:
That's an interesting assertion. I don't think you could
back this "change daily" claim up but let's assume it
is true for arguments sake. What is it that causes it
to cha nge daily and why would this be a danger to
children?
Smith Computer:
A new discovery here, a different level of measurement there, a
new
perspective with plausible promise, or any of a hundred
viewpoints
which
subscr ibe to a particular agenda each tell our children a
plethora of
things
which later change.
Ok.You say it is wrong to teach children this and
yet this is the reality: new information _is_
discovered which modifies what we know. Th is
undermines your implication that science is taught
as some sort of unchanging truth, since if it changes
daily as you say then it is obvious to everyone that
it isn't unchanging truth and no one is fooled --
if you were correct abou t how it is presented.
It is not wrong to teach children science, it is wrong to assert a
theory as
fact.
That's silly. Theory isn't taught as fact. Stephen J. Gould
addresses this in my previous post. Evolution is a fact.
That is, evolution is observed to happen. Evolution is
also a theory--the theory explaining the fact of evolution.
When there are disagreements in science about evolution it
is about the theory, not the fact.
That is where the problem begins.
What is taught as science is presented as "here is
what we now know" along with the evidence for that
claim. Your implication that this is taught as
some unchanging dogma is a straw man. In fact
that is what religion does. So once again it seems
you wish to assert that what you oppose is no
better than what you profess or believe. Apparently
you cannot argue that what you have is superior and
so you want to drag the opposition down to the same
level. Thus, science is taught as dogma and atheism is a
religion, according to you. The immediate problem
with this is that you've offered little o r no evidence
that this is accurate. It may be what you believe
but that isn't the same thing.
The schools that I have attended, did not say the word "now".
And when was this?
Some time ago.
Religion seems to me to be an answer searching for a
question. I
do not
adhere to the world"s religions as they are full of
inconsistancy
and
falsehood.
You don't find it ironic that you (apparently) don't
think that what you believe is religion at the same time
you claim that evolution is? Isn't that a bit 1984ish-
-War is Peace, Love is Hate?
I do not know if the relative term "religion" can be applied to
evolution,
however to those in the scientific community, the ardor I see is
unmistakable.
"unmistakable?" Well you aren't exactly a non-partisan
observer, are you? This is why evidence is important,
rather than 2 people simply asserting beliefs back and forth
as if that were evidence.
Nor are you, however it is truth we seek, and not our own agenda.
The trut h is what I seek,
Since you don't seem to think that evidence is
important, how do you know when you've found
the truth? Is it something more than simply
whatever pleases you to believe? Just a few minutes
ago yo u thought it was the truth that no man ever
saw the face of God.
I think evidence is important, I just do not think that it is
required in
all instances.
Obviously it isn't required in all instances.
We agree.
You will have no doubt already read the response which publishes
the
tru th
in that matter.
You seem to have a very loose definition for the word
"truth" here. I did see your assertions but I saw no
evidence that backed them up. You made _claims_
of evidence--about the context demonstrating your
point--but that is just another assertion until or
unless you show the context actually proving your
point.
Truth is not loose by any stretch of the word.
I didn't say it was.
We agree.
The truth may be relative to
what science calls absolute truth,
Science doesn't call anything "absolute truth"! That
was me.
Science may not however many many scientists amd comologists do.
but again I iterate: The truth I am
speaking about and pursue is the truth which stems from the study and
research associated with the Creator by means of his word and the
reflection
of those findings by means of the reality we enjoy as humans.
Then you use the word in a unique way that would not
be recognized by nearly 100% of people who know
what the word means What's the point of doing that? And
you should be aware that simply pinning the label "truth"
onto something does not make that label "true."
The point is that you asked the question and I published the answer. Truth,
like beauty and evidence are both in the eyes of the beholder thus all have
a unique perspective when addressing the abstract. You should be aware of
that.
Truth is something that remains after all things that are
not the truth are removed.
If you consider the truth as something that can never be
found to be untrue (let's call this "absolute truth")
then one can never know when he has found it.
Is it the absolute truth that there are 9 planets in
the solar system? To say "yes" is to make a
prediction about the future. That prediction is that
no new information will ever be discovered (i | | | | | | | | |
