| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Davey" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 11:20:45 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1106541947.556575.288360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
The Bible can still be inerrant but the readers
fail to understand it properly.
In other words its subjective?
Secondary issues are by definition subjective. If there
were no subjectivity, there would be no issues.
I agree with that. I don't understand, however, how this
can be true of the Bible if you believe it to be the inerrent
word of an objective God. Jason has said this a few times
if i recall correctly. So how can he have it both ways?
God has simply chosen not to make all things objectively self
-evident at this time. Now we see as in a glass darkly.
If the objectivity is cloaked then it is obviously subjective for any
human reading. Yet you deny this as true since God understands it and
knows the full meaning of the words. this makes no sense at all Davey.
You are saying the Bible is subjective AND objective. I thought
Jason, and possibly yourself, have previously said there is no
subjectivity in the bible. This appears to be a shell game.
The subjectivity is in the reader, not the text.
God certainly does hide aspects of truth at certain times. The Bible says as
much, and shows Christ doing the same, and there are reasons for the same.
The only reasons that actually make sense to me are the reasons of
justification by faith, not works, and what that means with regard to both
the faith/works and the faith/sight dichotomies.
You could just as well ask 'why is the Bible only a couple of
thousand pages long?' or 'why are the Gospel accounts so
short? I can read them in a day, yet you say this is the most
important thing that has ever happened?'. But God has His
purposes, and the way in which these things are written and
presented is so that you might have faith.
That means enough, so that you have something to have faith
in, but not too much, so that the faith doesn't become objective
knowledge.
The length of the Bible or the Gospels has nothing to do with whether
it is subjective or objective. So thios is a poor analogy, or I am
completely missing your point.
Both the sufficiency in length and volume of detail and the objectivity of
scripture are adequate for faith and life, but are not, in themselves, going
to persuade people. This is because they are written in order that men may
believe.
I'd like you to consider the verses at the end of John 20, verse 24 to the
end and also the final verse of John's gospel.
Consider the fact that we have, right after the episode with doubting Thomas
which is the archetypal lesson about belief being blessed in the absence of
sufficient proof, the verses which say "And many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but
these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." The end of
John's gospel also re-iterates how much more material there could have been
about what Jesus did, indeed if all his works of creation and redemption
were to be set in print in earthly book form the entire globe would not hold
them.
To me, this means, and the juxtaposition of them next to each other actually
confirms that, that having too much detail as well as too little is
detramental to faith as is being able objectively to test something by
sight. "Be not faithless, Thomas, but believing" says Christ, when doubting
Thomas wants to do the old Zanussi logo, the old "appliance of science" by
poking his skeptic digit into the very wounds of his Saviour.
There is a saying "seeing is believing" but this is actually not true at
all. It is as common a misconception as the idea that indifference is
tolerance. People who really couldn't give a tinker's cuss one way or
another about something are not tolerant, merely indifferent. People who
disagree with something but defend the right to it anyway are tolerant. They
are 'putting up' with something they don't like. Those who don't care in the
first place may look tolerant, but they simply don't care.
Faith and knowledge are like that. People say "seeing is believing" but
these verses show that seeing is knowledge, not seeing and yet believing is
blessed, and not believing until we see is faithlessness. Seeing, despite
popular wisdom, is the antithesis of real believing just as not giving a
damn is the antithesis of real tolerating.
Therefore, "these things are written that ye may believe" refers to the
opposite of "these things are written that ye may be convinced by a)the
power of our argument, or b) the irrefutability of our logic, or c) the
ability of the written word to stop the mouths of all skeptics, or d) the
way everything in this book is backed up by something observable in nature
or e) the fact that you can immediately understand everything that is in
here or f) the fact that God will speak to you with an audible voice when
you read it or g) the fact that sufficient material was given to answer all
my possible doubts.
The Bible is aimed at engendering true saving faith, and is written
precisely with that goal in mind. Faith comes by hearing (and hearing,
reading is an extension of which, just as writing is an extension of
speaking) from the Word of God, and knowledge by sight, of which testing and
experimentation is an extention. We walk by faith, not by sight; by hope not
by knowledge; by accepting what is heard and read and not by trying to place
our puny brains above it and to assess it as though we were superior to the
Word of God.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
24 Jan 2005 12:00:44 PM |
|
|
Thank you for cross-posting this into the other newsgroup, Unc.
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:ct3at7$r9s$0@pita.alt.net...
(snip)
| Therefore, "these things are written that ye may believe" refers to the
| opposite of "these things are written that ye may be convinced by a)the
| power of our argument, or b) the irrefutability of our logic, or c) the
| ability of the written word to stop the mouths of all skeptics, or d) the
| way everything in this book is backed up by something observable in nature
| or e) the fact that you can immediately understand everything that is in
| here or f) the fact that God will speak to you with an audible voice when
| you read it or g) the fact that sufficient material was given to answer
all
| my possible doubts.
Given this, would you then say all the arguments, "logic", appeals to
observable nature, etc. by the biblical literalists/inerrantists are
completely misguided? It would seem so. If so, tell Gastrich he's wasting
his time.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
24 Jan 2005 12:21:29 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
God certainly does hide aspects of truth at certain times. The Bible
says as
much, and shows Christ doing the same, and there are reasons for the
same.
So you are basically saying your god is a liar (=hide the truth, also
known as the half-truth)?
HB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
24 Jan 2005 04:33:02 PM |
|
|
<hbarwood@troyst.edu> wrote in message
news:1106590889.170946.303420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
God certainly does hide aspects of truth at certain times. The Bible
says as
much, and shows Christ doing the same, and there are reasons for the
same.
So you are basically saying your god is a liar (=hide the truth, also
known as the half-truth)?
HB
I was swimming in a little pool in San Domingo, a beautiful little heated
roman bath at the side of the main swimming pool in the Hotel, and I saw a
piece of paper on the bottom of the bath with a printed message on, and I
put my goggles on, dipped down and picked it up. What it said, in Spanish,
was "half truths are very rarely as much as half the truth" which I thought
was very good so I retained the idea quite a bit longer than the suntan I
got, which is faded already now.
God, however, wants us to know the truth that shall set us free, and the
Bible contains a sufficiency of truth to do that.
I do not believe it gives us a full truth know, as we have eternity in the
presence of God for that.
The reasons why the truth about Christ's deity and resurrection were kept
rather under wraps before the event is made clear in the verse that says
"none of the princes of this world knew it, for had they known it they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory".
Today, in a chess game, I thought I was making a bit of a crucial advance
when my opponent (an old friend of mine whose homepage is at
www.ag-independent.de ) suddenly checkmated me from a place I had completely
overlooked. That's what the crucifiction and resurrection of Christ was like
in a sense. By killing Christ, the devil thought he had won, but as soon as
it happened he realised his doom was writ.
Had he realised God was about to take our sins on Himself by undergoing
death and rising again, he would have done anything to keep the Divine
Messiah from Golgotha.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
24 Jan 2005 09:49:12 PM |
|
|
I'm sorry, but I think you are a few coconuts short of a raft.
HB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
25 Jan 2005 06:20:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm sorry, but I think you are a few coconuts short of a raft.
HB
Rafts don't need coconuts.
JG
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
25 Jan 2005 07:22:57 PM |
|
|
Obviously, you have never tried to escape from an island prison
populated with nothing but evangelfundies and coconut palms.
HB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nantko Schanssema" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 07:42:18 PM |
|
|
[free.christians removed]
hbarwood@troyst.edu:
Obviously, you have never tried to escape from an island prison
populated with nothing but evangelfundies and coconut palms.
Aaaarg, the horror.
Anyway, I don't think Jason has a butterfly tattood on his chest.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
25 Jan 2005 08:54:58 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik <hbarwood@troyst.edu> napisał w wiadomości
news:1106624952.836324.165210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm sorry, but I think you are a few coconuts short of a raft.
HB
You may say that, but at least I don't edit out all the header info and the
foregoing material so as to confuse people.
Why don't you get yourself a proper newsfeed, and newsreader client?
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "gregwrld" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
25 Jan 2005 11:54:20 AM |
|
|
No, you just supply a boatload of irrelevant nonsense whose primary
purpose is to comfort yourself and your fellow wackos...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
25 Jan 2005 06:21:01 PM |
|
|
gregwrld wrote:
No, you just supply a boatload of irrelevant nonsense whose primary
purpose is to comfort yourself and your fellow wackos...
ad hominem
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "gregwrld" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
27 Jan 2005 12:35:44 PM |
|
|
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
27 Jan 2005 03:47:42 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 10:35:44 -0800, "gregwrld" <GCzebatol@msn.com> wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
What makes you manifestly wacko is you believe they are ..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
28 Jan 2005 03:04:00 AM |
|
|
gregwrld wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
Your elitism is shining. Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Is the world an intimidating place for you because you'd have to classify
90% of the population as "wackos"?
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
28 Jan 2005 03:13:53 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
gregwrld wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an
ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
Your elitism is shining. Too bad America's founders weren't as
"elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God.
Unlike you, Jason.
To quote: " It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from
you. Far be it from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's
Son's sacrifice for
you on the cross."
Not very humble, is it?
RF
See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Is the world an intimidating place for you because you'd have to
classify
90% of the population as "wackos"?
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
30 Jan 2005 07:58:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
gregwrld wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
Your elitism is shining. Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
neither ben franklin nor thomas jefferson were christian.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
30 Jan 2005 11:59:24 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
gregwrld wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
Your elitism is shining. Too bad America's founders weren't as
"elite" as you. They were humble Christians that believed in God.
See http://michaelnewdow.com
neither ben franklin nor thomas jefferson were christian.
Prove it.
JG
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
31 Jan 2005 02:53:26 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
gregwrld wrote:
If I call a tall man tall it's not ad hominem.
If I call a wacko a wacko it's not ad hominem.
It's obvious from UD's posts that he lives by a tangled set of
rationales whose only purpose is to justify his belief in an
ancient
set of superstitions. The same goes for you, JG.
And that makes you both wackos...
Your elitism is shining. Too bad America's founders weren't as
"elite" as you. They were humble Christians that believed in God.
See http://michaelnewdow.com
neither ben franklin nor thomas jefferson were christian.
Prove it.
JG
Do you call someone who doubts the divinity of Christ a christian,
Jason?
Bearing in mind that you call people who criticise your shoddy
scholarship atheists, I'd like to know what standards of evidence you
apply in such judgements.
RF
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
30 Jan 2005 11:56:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:59:24 GMT, "Dr."Jason Gastrich
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
<squaak>
Prove it.
</squaak>
Wanna cracker or a bible with that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
28 Jan 2005 02:46:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Nice site, Jason. Lots of useful quotes. Wish you hadn't chosen to focus
on that atheist, though ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 01:02:04 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Nice site, Jason. Lots of useful quotes. Wish you hadn't chosen to
focus on that atheist, though ..
Thanks.
To this day, Michael Newdow continues to try to remove God from the public
eye. He needs to be mindful of America's founders and their original
intent. They were Bible-believing Christians who wanted people to choose
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They surely didn't want to erradicate God
from the public eye and they surely didn't want people to be atheists.
To God be the glory.
Sincerely,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 02:59:32 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
George Peatty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Nice site, Jason. Lots of useful quotes. Wish you hadn't chosen
to
focus on that atheist, though ..
Thanks.
To this day, Michael Newdow continues to try to remove God from the
public
eye. He needs to be mindful of America's founders and their original
intent. They were Bible-believing Christians who wanted people to
choose
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They surely didn't want to
erradicate God
from the public eye and they surely didn't want people to be
atheists.
To God be the glory.
Tell me Jason, does it add to God's glory that you publish lies on your
web site?
It has been pointed out to you many times that by no possible stretch
of the imagination could Albert Einstein be counted as someone who
believed in the Biblical account of creation. Have you removed his name
from your list, or do you persist in perpetuating a lie? I'm afraid
that ignorance is no longer an adequate excuse.
I know that don't like to respond to me, but don't forget that
everybody else can see what I've posted and make their own judgement on
your dishonesty.
I don't know of a God whose glory is enhanced by dishonesty among his
followers, but perhaps yours is. However, this is not the God of the
Christians.
RF
Sincerely,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
01 Feb 2005 04:24:10 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 00:59:32 -0800 in free.christians, Richard Forrest
("Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>) said, directing the reply
to free.christians
Jason Gastrich wrote:
George Peatty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:04:00 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Too bad America's founders weren't as "elite" as
you. They were humble Christians that believed in God. See
http://michaelnewdow.com
Nice site, Jason. Lots of useful quotes. Wish you hadn't chosen
to
focus on that atheist, though ..
Thanks.
To this day, Michael Newdow continues to try to remove God from the
public
eye. He needs to be mindful of America's founders and their original
intent. They were Bible-believing Christians who wanted people to
choose
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They surely didn't want to
erradicate God
from the public eye and they surely didn't want people to be
atheists.
To God be the glory.
Tell me Jason, does it add to God's glory that you publish lies on your
web site?
It has been pointed out to you many times that by no possible stretch
of the imagination could Albert Einstein be counted as someone who
believed in the Biblical account of creation. Have you removed his name
from your list, or do you persist in perpetuating a lie? I'm afraid
that ignorance is no longer an adequate excuse.
I know that don't like to respond to me, but don't forget that
everybody else can see what I've posted and make their own judgement on
your dishonesty.
I don't know of a God whose glory is enhanced by dishonesty among his
followers, but perhaps yours is. However, this is not the God of the
Christians.
Jason's usual response to such criticisms is to state that he "trusts
his sources" - which are in every instance I've seen secondary
sources.
It works like this: "Fred" for example says Darwin said such and such
a thing about the formation of the eye, Jason "trusts" Fred, so as far
as Jason is concerned, that's what Darwin said.
However, if you point Jason to the original quotation - which has an
entirely different import to the version quoted by Fred - Jason
insists on sticking with the misleading version *because* - apparently
- he trust his source **more than* the person** who pointed him at
*the original in context quotation*.
Please forgive all the *emphasis* but I really do find Jason's
attitude with respect to this kind of things absolutely amazing to the
point considering that he might well be a fool or a knave. Or both.
But, that said, in a wider context I think his attitude with respect
to this kind of thing has wider implications because it may go to the
root of his faith, which in turn may explain some of what we see here:
faith as inappropriate or unjustified trust, as it were.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
01 Feb 2005 09:50:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:24:10 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
<snip>
On 29 Jan 2005 00:59:32 -0800 in free.christians, Richard Forrest
("Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>) said, directing the reply
to free.christians
Tell me Jason, does it add to God's glory that you publish lies on your
web site?
It has been pointed out to you many times that by no possible stretch
of the imagination could Albert Einstein be counted as someone who
believed in the Biblical account of creation. Have you removed his name
from your list, or do you persist in perpetuating a lie? I'm afraid
that ignorance is no longer an adequate excuse.
I know that don't like to respond to me, but don't forget that
everybody else can see what I've posted and make their own judgement on
your dishonesty.
I don't know of a God whose glory is enhanced by dishonesty among his
followers, but perhaps yours is. However, this is not the God of the
Christians.
Jason's usual response to such criticisms is to state that he "trusts
his sources" - which are in every instance I've seen secondary
sources.
It works like this: "Fred" for example says Darwin said such and such
a thing about the formation of the eye, Jason "trusts" Fred, so as far
as Jason is concerned, that's what Darwin said.
However, if you point Jason to the original quotation - which has an
entirely different import to the version quoted by Fred - Jason
insists on sticking with the misleading version *because* - apparently
- he trust his source **more than* the person** who pointed him at
*the original in context quotation*.
Please forgive all the *emphasis* but I really do find Jason's
attitude with respect to this kind of things absolutely amazing to the
point considering that he might well be a fool or a knave. Or both.
But, that said, in a wider context I think his attitude with respect
to this kind of thing has wider implications because it may go to the
root of his faith, which in turn may explain some of what we see here:
faith as inappropriate or unjustified trust, as it were.
Your assessment seems to be consistent with the available evidence.
I suspect that sometimes a tighter loop develops; at least, the risk
is there given the tendency of the people involved to avoid citing
their actual, secondary sources and simply attributing the alleged
quotations to the primary.
Start with "Bill" who says that Darwin (or Madison, or whoever) said
such and such. "Fred" trusts "Bill" and repeats the claim, but without
citing "Bill" as the source. Now "Jay" sees "Fred"'s statement, and
repeats it, again not citing "Fred" (or, obviously, "Bill") as the
actual source.
Meanwhile, "Bill" is shown the original quote in context, or tries and
fails to find it in any real primary source. In a fit of intellectual
honesty, he repudiates his original statement. ("Well, it looks like I
was wrong. Darwin/Madison/... did not say that, as far as I can
tell.")
But pointing out "Bill"'s repudiation to *either* "Fred" or "Jay"
fails to convince them. Why? Each one can now point to another source
they *trust* who makes the same claim. "Fred" points to "Jay", without
knowing that "Jay"'s claim is based solely on "Fred"'s statement.
"Jay" points to "Fred" as a still-"trustworthy" source (even if "Bill"
no longer accepts the original claim), not knowing that "Fred"'s
statement was based entirely on "Bill"'s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
01 Feb 2005 10:09:08 PM |
|
|
Frank F. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:24:10 +0000, Therion Ware
<snip>
It works like this: "Fred" for example says Darwin said such and
such
a thing about the formation of the eye, Jason "trusts" Fred, so as
far
as Jason is concerned, that's what Darwin said.
However, if you point Jason to the original quotation - which has an
entirely different import to the version quoted by Fred - Jason
insists on sticking with the misleading version *because* -
apparently
- he trust his source **more than* the person** who pointed him at
*the original in context quotation*.
<snip>
"Jay" points to "Fred" as a still-"trustworthy" source (even if
"Bill"
no longer accepts the original claim), not knowing that "Fred"'s
statement was based entirely on "Bill"'s.
The key here is *not knowing*. That is what they say but is that the
truth. Once saved always saved so whats a little lie here and there to
get the critics off your back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
01 Feb 2005 10:54:56 PM |
|
|
On 1 Feb 2005 20:09:08 -0800, "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank F. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:24:10 +0000, Therion Ware
<snip>
It works like this: "Fred" for example says Darwin said such and
such
a thing about the formation of the eye, Jason "trusts" Fred, so as
far
as Jason is concerned, that's what Darwin said.
However, if you point Jason to the original quotation - which has an
entirely different import to the version quoted by Fred - Jason
insists on sticking with the misleading version *because* -
apparently
- he trust his source **more than* the person** who pointed him at
*the original in context quotation*.
<snip>
"Jay" points to "Fred" as a still-"trustworthy" source (even if
"Bill"
no longer accepts the original claim), not knowing that "Fred"'s
statement was based entirely on "Bill"'s.
The key here is *not knowing*. That is what they say
[but _they_ _don't_ say that. Rather, "Fred said it, and I trust Fred,
so it must be true."]
but is that the truth. Once saved always saved so whats a little lie here and there to
get the critics off your back?
Maybe so. I'm inclined to attribute this particular behavior to
execrable scholarship rather than intentional deceit, but I try to be
charitable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
01 Feb 2005 11:32:55 PM |
|
|
Frank F. Smith wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 20:09:08 -0800, "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote:>
Frank F. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:24:10 +0000, Therion Ware
<snip>
It works like this: "Fred" for example says Darwin
said such and such a thing about the formation
of the eye, Jason "trusts" Fred, so as far as Jason
is concerned, that's what Darwin said.
However, if you point Jason to the original quotation
- which has an entirely different import to the version
quoted by Fred - Jason insists on sticking with the
misleading version *because* - apparently - he trust
his source **more than* the person** who pointed
him at *the original in context quotation*.
<snip>
"Jay" points to "Fred" as a still-"trustworthy" source
(even if "Bill" no longer accepts the original claim),
not knowing that "Fred"'s statement was based
entirely on "Bill"'s.
The key here is *not knowing*. That is what they say
[but _they_ _don't_ say that. Rather, "Fred said it, and
I trust Fred, so it must be true."]
I mean the context of *not knowing* with regard to "not knowing that
Fred's statement was based entriely on Bills". I agree with you.
but is that the truth. Once saved always saved so whats
a little lie here and there to get the critics off your back?
Maybe so. I'm inclined to attribute this particular behavior to
execrable scholarship rather than intentional deceit, but I try to be
charitable.
I used to be more charitable but when i see them face their ignorance
and ignore it time and time again I have to believe their behaviour is
willful. I assume their rationale is that they are more worried about
the content of their message than the accuracy of their message. The
internet is such a great source for these huksters. Do you think they
have special filters for factual web sites. Fact Nanny!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 10:56:53 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 00:59:32 -0800, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
wrote:
It has been pointed out to you many times that by no possible stretch
of the imagination could Albert Einstein be counted as someone who
believed in the Biblical account of creation.
And, you know this, how? I came to believe the account of the creation;
there was a time I did not believe it; others took the opposite path, from
belief to unbelief. Only God and the renowned Einstein know for certain
what he believed; Al's not around to ask, and God isn't saying. In the end,
all we have are his statements on the fact, and each of us chooses what he
wants to believe. If he really said that "science without religion is lame
..", I am not inclined to accept any skeptic claims that Einstein was a
brother skeptic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 11:12:06 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 00:59:32 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com>
wrote:
It has been pointed out to you many times that by no possible
stretch
of the imagination could Albert Einstein be counted as someone who
believed in the Biblical account of creation.
And, you know this, how? I came to believe the account of the
creation;
there was a time I did not believe it; others took the opposite path,
from
belief to unbelief. Only God and the renowned Einstein know for
certain
what he believed; Al's not around to ask, and God isn't saying. In
the end,
all we have are his statements on the fact, and each of us chooses
what he
wants to believe. If he really said that "science without religion
is lame
.", I am not inclined to accept any skeptic claims that Einstein was
a
brother skeptic.
Of course Einstein was a skeptic! He was a scientist whose skepticism
transformed the nature of physics. But this has nothing whatsoever to
do with any religious beliefs he may or may not have held.
On the other hand, Einstein words on the subject of religion are on
record:
"I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with
great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the
universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we
experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very
primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider
myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I
cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward
or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in
our daily life."
This is not the God of the old Testament.
"If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an
image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my
religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior
spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to
perceive with our frail and feeble minds ."
This is not a belief in the Biblical account of creation.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/freethink.html
"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every
child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came - though
the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep
religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of
twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached
the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be
true."
These are not the words of someone who believed in the Biblical account
of creation.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Prayer.html
"However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws
is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the
existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of
faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the
success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who
is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that
a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly
superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our
modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science
leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite
different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
These are not the words of someone who believed in the Biblical account
of creation.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/personal.html
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures
of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by
modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the
infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we,
with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.
Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."
These are not the words of someone who believed in the Biblical account
of creation.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/religion3.html
"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural
events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by
science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in
which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am
convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion
would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to
maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of
necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human
progres"
These are not the words of someone who believed in the Biblical account
of creation.
On the other hand, can you or anyone else offer a scrap of evidence
that Einstein, as Jason claims, believed in the Biblical account of
creation?
I thought not.
It's a lie.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 01:13:45 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 09:12:06 -0800, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
wrote:
"If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an
image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my
religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior
spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to
perceive with our frail and feeble minds ."
This is not a belief in the Biblical account of creation.
On the contrary, that is *exactly* what it is. Einstein knew better than
most the limitations of his insights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Post-resurrection Chronology (Again) |
29 Jan 2005 01:35:51 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 09:12:06 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com>
wrote:
"If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not
an
image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence,
my
religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable
superior
spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to
perceive with our frail and feeble minds ."
This is not a belief in the Biblical account of creation.
On the contrary, that is *exactly* what it is. Einstein knew better
than
most the limitations of his insights.
How does the term "subtle spirit" fit in with the biblical God who
talked to Adam and Eve?
To call this clutching at straws gives it more weight than it merits.
And how can you reconcile a statement such as "Through the reading of
popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the
stories of the Bible could not be true" with the claim that Einstein
believed in the Biblical account of creation?
The statement that he did so is a lie. It is a testament to the
dishonesty of creationists that they perpetuate it.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
