So once we die, we'll be taken out of space and time as well, and won't suffer for an actual eternity?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've asked one of my favorite
> tougher-than-the-critics internal questions: ."Why
> isn't Jesus still in Hell suffering for all
> eternity, 'X' times as much as would have been
> required for the 'X' number of humans that he
> saves?1) Jesus himself clearly regarded his
> Crucifixion as a huge 'sacrifice, repeatedly
> asking God to do things some other way:'
> "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point
> of death." ... Going a little farther, he fell

Um, kind of. My first question is why require a blood sacrifice at all?


> with his face to the ground and prayed, "My
> Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken
> from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." ...
> He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father,
> if it is not possible for this cup to be taken
> away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
> (Matthew 26)2) Jesus-as-Man within the created
> cosmos was on the Cross for only a few hours
> before he died. There is every Biblical reason to
> understand that Jesus-as-God did indeed suffer the
> full, eternal amount of 'weeping and gnashing of
> teeth' required to ransom 'X' number of human
> beings for all eternity."... he was pierced for

Um...So god's still suffering and will be suffering for eternity?

Why allow people to suffer for eternity to begin with? Why not just make it so they cease to exist? Why would a good god, with the power to do otherwise, allow people to suffer for eternity?

> our transgressions, he was crushed for our
> iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace
> was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
> (Isaiah 53)3) In the last analysis, of course, it

I believe Isaiah is referring to Isreal, not Jesus - as that's what the chapter is about. It is *Certainly* not giving any evidence that it's referring to Jesus' time in hell.

What evidence (textual) do you have that Jesus went to hell *at all*??

> depends upon whether you believe God or not - the
> Bible makes it clear that Jesus' life and death
> were not merely Kabuki theater, a trivial slam
> dunk, but rather required phenomenal effort on the
> part of Jesus, both in life and in what Paul
> called the "foolishness" of his death on the
> Cross."God was pleased through the foolishness of
> what was preached to save those who believe. Jews
> demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for
> wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a
> stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
> Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both
> Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
> wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser
> than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is
> stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1)


Sorry, but this is nonsense:

1. Jesus/god did not spend an eternity in hell - otherwise Jesus/god would still be there and there definitely could be no second comming.
2. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus even went to hell in the first place.
3. What logical sense does it make for a sacrifice in the first place?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount of
> suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
>
> Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as
> God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> than as Men will, limited to created space/time.


How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus the man) that requires space and time in order to exist could exist outside of space and time?

Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how was he resurrected? This seems impossible since there would be an eternity of time that would have to be crossed in order to make it the three days to the resurrection.

Essentially your position is that we need to have faith in Christianity, Eliot.

Ignore the logical contradictions, science, and common sense and just believe.

Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate that this universe requires a creator.

This seems to be your fundamental sticking point and although I've pointed out that this notion is incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a different tact (the tact above).

Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do you know this?)."

Sure they do ...

F.A.Schaeffer "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses everything, including people. To those who hold this view, everything people are or do is explained by ... some kind of reductionism." ... "In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex bu not intrinsically different." "I have never heard this expressed more clearly than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico. [Nobel Prize-winner] George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard University, was also there lecturing to the same group. He expressed with great force the modern concept that all things, including man, are merely the product of chance. After he had stressed over and over again that all things, beginning from the molecule and ending with man, are only a product of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet." According to these theories, that is all that man can be. Man beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried to make himself autonomous, but rather than becoming great, he had found himself ending up as only a collection of molecules -- and nothing more." "[The] equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance producing the total configuration of the universe and all that is in it, modern people hold by faith. And if one does in faith accept this, with what final value is he left? In his lecture at Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one value. It was the same one with which English philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald and Russell and for many other modern thinkers, the final value is the biological continuity of the human race. If this is the only final value, one is left wondering why this then has importance." "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would have been no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs" against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2009 02:46PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do
> you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there
> is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> everything, including people. To those who hold
> this view, everything people are or do is
> explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> ...

This doesn't support your assertion, please try again.

> "In one form of reductionism, man is explained by
> reducing him to the smallest particles which make
> up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> molecule or the energy particle, more complex bu
> not intrinsically different."

1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
2. This doesn't support your assertion.
3. This commits the logical fallacy of composition.


> "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> University, was also there lecturing to the same
> group. He expressed with great force the modern
> concept that all things, including man, are merely
> the product of chance. After he had stressed over

Please provide some support for this, your word is not good enough. A biologist would be familar with the theory of evolution, which is not a chance endeavor.

> and over again that all things, beginning from the
> molecule and ending with man, are only a product
> of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago there
> was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> which produced Hamlet." According to these
> theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried to
> make himself autonomous, but rather than becoming
> great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> collection of molecules -- and nothing more."

Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone with any sense can see that natural selection is a *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance' process.

My guess is that you are taking his words out of context and as a result you are actively lying about what he intended to his words - like you did last time that I caught you doing this.

> " equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance
> producing the total configuration of the universe
> and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> faith.

Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that mankind is a product of evolution, which is the antithesis of chance.

> And if one does in faith accept this, with
> what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> value. It was the same one with which English
> philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> the final value is the biological continuity of
> the human race. If this is the only final value,
> one is left wondering why this then has
> importance."

You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of those people are dead. Further this is an opinion and not rationally argued for - ergo we can dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.

> "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> this position cannot live like machines! If they
> could, there would have been no tensions in their
> intellectual position or in their lives. But even
> people who believe they are machines cannot live
> like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs"
> against their reason and try to find something
> which gives meaning to life, even though to do so
> they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer


Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually impressive and there is no reason to accept what he said. You most certainly have failed to argue for any of the positions he's put forth.

Pangloss wrote: "Sorry, but this is nonsense." 1. Jesus/god did not spend an eternity in hell - otherwise Jesus/god would still be there and there definitely could be no second coming. 2. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus even went to hell in the first place. 3. What logical sense does it make for a sacrifice in the first place?

1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend an eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third day. However, Bible clearly states that Jesus' suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for many, many humans. 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say that Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary resting place of the dead. 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement for 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's prerogative, your feelings notwithstanding.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> > way, as God could not possess these attributes
> in
> > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> >
> >
> > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > Freud's view.
>
> What is your meaning here - that Freud said that
> mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent?
> Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
>
> > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> Bible,
> > and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> > him.")
>
> True.
>
> > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> are
> > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism
> has
> > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > Chapter 1.
>
> Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> wife?
>
> > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> known
> > to human beings."
>
> Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite
> attributes, then an entity with finite attributes
> and finite understanding could not, by definition,
> understand the infinite being.
>
> > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> language?
>
> You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> testament god basically explained his ways as
> being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> book of job in some other way?
>
> > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that
> God
> > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
>
> Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity,
> which they believed was beyond reason. Read The
> History Of God, if you want the full story.
>
> > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > personal God communicated with his personal
> > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> Moses
> > and the Prophets.
> > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> have
> > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> "the
> > Father"),
> > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> Jesus'
> > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> scripture
> > is god-breathed.
> > In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > importantly they spoke human words to human
> beings
> > as given to them by God.
>
> In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian
> beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> Christianity? The book of thomas?
>
> This next section really diminishes my respect for
> you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist
> dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have
> not read the original sources or you have and you
> persist in passing on dishonesty.
>
> Please list the context of these quotes, as they
> make no sense:
>
> > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> assumed
> > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,
> I
> > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> 350.
>
> This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> earlier periods - the Precambrian!
>
> > “The case at present must remain
> inexplicable,
> > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> against
> > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> anatomy
> > appears in the fossil record for the first time
> > ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> > good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> no
> > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid
> to
> > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
>
> This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's
> words as those of someone who doesn't accept that
> transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or
> you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
>
> Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of
> evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he
> is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a
> smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> Instead, evolution works on long periods of status
> followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> periods of change. That's why he specifically
> says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
>
> You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your
> due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to
> be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and
> Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
>
> Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
>
> Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find
> Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny?
> Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many
> other influences. It is not honest to simply
> forget the other influences and to blame it on
> Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> btw).
>
> My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> edification, what was the mechanism of selection
> for Stalinist communism?
>
> Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as
> I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> christianity is correct. So at best, if you are
> right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> accepting christianity.


Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with dishonest quote mining.

Please learn to be honest Eliot.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend an
> eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third day.
> However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for many,
> many humans.

Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense - please demonstrate how it's logically consistent to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal punishment.

Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the bible? Are you making things up Eliot?

> 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say that
> Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> resting place of the dead.

No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible state this, Eliot?

> 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement for
> 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's prerogative,
> your feelings notwithstanding.


My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god.

Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although I'm sensing you don't have a problem with dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.

Please be more honest in your future posts.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).


Please answer the question, Eliot.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount
> of
> > suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
> >
> > Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as
> as
> > God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> > than as Men will, limited to created
> space/time.
>
>
> How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus
> the man) that requires space and time in order to
> exist could exist outside of space and time?
>
> Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how
> was he resurrected? This seems impossible since
> there would be an eternity of time that would have
> to be crossed in order to make it the three days
> to the resurrection.


Please answer the question Eliot.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>


There were actually several gnostic sects in early Christianity that came up with the concept of "two Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil, vengeful) and the God of the New Testament (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way to reconcile the disparity between the two.

Also, why would God command mankind not to worship any other Gods or idols and then come up with Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?

Pangloss, you make overmany accusations of 'lying' and 'hypocrisy' ... Schaeffer -- not I -- was in Acapulco lecturing with George Wald.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > My feelings are not at issue - it's a question
> of
> > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of
> a
> > benevolent god.
> >
>
>
> There were actually several gnostic sects in early
> Christianity that came up with the concept of "two
> Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way
> to reconcile the disparity between the two.

That is true - and I believe it was due to the helenization of Judaism during the time. I don't particularly have a problem with that concept.


> Also, why would God command mankind not to worship
> any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?

I think that was added because other gods in Judaism were getting lip service at the time. For instance, Yahweh's consort Asherah was often prayed to by couples seeking children.

It was only after a few centuries that the ancient Hebrews decided to become monotheistic. Although, I would argue that they aren't monotheistic (neither are the Christians).

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, you make overmany accusations of 'lying'
> and 'hypocrisy' ... Schaeffer -- not I -- was in
> Acapulco lecturing with George Wald.


So you are admitting that Schaeffer is being dishonest or do you accept what he said?

Further, I caught you lying (in regards to gould). You didn't bother to refute it, instead you ignored it (which is your custom).

Pangloss, was Michael Vick correctly prosecuted for merely allowing dogs to be cruel to other dogs -- when Darwinian 'nature' [where whatever is, is right] displays cruelty night and day (e.g., as when lions viciously claw and then suffocate their prey)?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, was Michael Vick correctly prosecuted
> for merely allowing dogs to be cruel to other dogs
> -- when Darwinian 'nature' displays cruelty night
> and day (e.g., as when lions viciously claw and
> then suffocate their prey)?


Yes Michael Vick was correctly prosecuted; he broke a law and was charged accordingly.

I don't know what you mean by 'darwinian nature', but the natural world and science are descriptive, not prescriptive.

In any event, why don't you deal with the multitude of problems ALREADY on your plate before you ask for a serving of morality. You can't deal with cosmology, so why should I engage you on morality (not that I haven't done so already, mind you, you just ignored it)?

I found this on Fark and thought it was appropriate...
Attachments:

Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask and you shall receive, those of use who know God in our hearts and minds understand that all our needs are taken care of before we have thought of them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have written so negatively about McLean Bible Church and Christianity have such harden hearts, hopefully all of you will one day wake up and experience what you are so obviously in need of "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love. Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are obstructions from the source.

More than a believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.

Yes... pliable and submissive. That's just how I like 'em.

More than a believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.


Are you kidding me? If Christ 'is love' then he wouldn't send those who don't believe to Hell for eternity.

What kind of sense does that make?

Memo to Pangloss -- Wikipedia says this about contemporary usage of the term "Darwinism:" "Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term." To most readers on this forum, "Darwinism" denotes contemporary popular cosmology, a world-view which posits that everything that exists around us, originated from a mysterious impersonal 'Big Bang' 'singularity' and is expanding toward an inevitable 'heat death' (which is well describe by Lon Solomon as "Fade to black!"). Where Christians see a created cosmos whose "heavens declare the glory of God," contemporary "Darwinian" Man presupposes the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system ... viz., despite all of the structure around us, we crash around in an uncreated, undesigned cosmos wherein all events result from impersonal matter/energy + time + chance because there is no 'person' outside of space/time ... and wherein human death is merely the disintegration of a chance collocation of atoms (e.g. George Wald's "collection of molecules called Shakespeare"). It's not too much to call today's 'Star Trek' cosmology, our popular 'religion' ... because it is accepted by the masses, who are preached to by authorities whose world-view rejects a priori any concept of created 'design' (let alone any moral 'Fall' by Man and subsequent 'Curse' and 'Redemption' by a creator God). The recent "Dark Knight" Batman film made a profound statement when a character said: "In a cruel world, the only justice is chance." In a 'Star Trek' cosmos, there may be a law against Michael Vick's cruelty to dogs, but there is no cosmological reason to oppose it ... just a sociological consensus. To play the 'Nazi' card ... Goebbels espoused a form of racist 'Social Darwinism' consistent with an impersonal universe: "Our starting-point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked — those are not our objectives. Our objectives are entirely different. They can be put most crisply in the sentence: we must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world." Men wind up living, and dying, where their presuppositions carry them. I submit that Goebbels was intellectually consistent to his 'Darwinian' cosmology. So was the famous Christian thinker Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived in a Christian cosmology, and as a cost of discipleship gave up his life protecting Jews ... loving his neighbor as Christ commanded. The difference is that Bonhoeffer expected to be raised from the dead by Jesus, who said "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Goebbels, in contrast, expected to remain dead for all eternity ... which makes his active, cruel 'Darwinian' life in service of the Master Race, all the more meaningless! If you can provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:32PM by Eliot Ness.

Boy oh boy..this has become a very difficult thread to read. I guess the jist of most of the cut and paste comments is that the theory of evolution is faulty or incomplete....and that the void between what we understand in the evolution of man and animals is due to divine intervention. What absolute horse shit...since the dawn of man religion has filled that void between knowledge and the unknown with their nonsense. In time...and progress in science the gap is slowly closing. In the mean time we now have enough information to have most reasonable people agree god is dead. It was proclaimed so over 40 years ago and is as true today as it ever was.....GOD IS DEAD! I say it every morning when I wake up and I still find it the most exhilerating and freeing statement a human being can make...GOD IS DEAD! I feel bettter already...dont you?

Pangloss wrote: "Are you kidding me? If Christ 'is love' then he wouldn't send those who don't believe to Hell for eternity. What kind of sense does that make?"

None, unless there is a God with a character that includes wrath as well as love ... which is what the Bible describes from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation. It is the wrath of God toward fallen men, that Christ bears upon the Cross ... showing 'love' by bearing that 'wrath' in the place of others ... and you're right that it makes no sense in a non-Christian cosmology. Few and far between have been the Nihilists and Anarchists, but they are really the most consistent of modern, non-Christian men. If we are just complex machines, then nothing really matters -- even if we inconsistently preach and promote borrowed Christian values such as compassion, etc. It's fascinating that the worst modern political tyrannies which deify the State, such as Nazism and Communism, preach Heaven-on-Earth but produce Hell-on-Earth.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:56PM by Eliot Ness.

Here is some science for you.

The Bible is NOT inerrant.

The New Testament was not put to paper until at least 100 years after the death of Jesus. It was an oral tradition that could have changed many times in the time period.

There were many chapters of the Bible, including the Shepherd of Hermas, that were considered religious doctrine in the New Testament until they were removed by Constantine. Other chapters, including "Revelations," were included by Constantine even though, at the time, Revelations was not considered to be part of the Bible.

Several stories, including the one about Jesus drawing the line in the sand, were actually examples written by Monks in the margins of the early Bibles to describe some of Jesus's teachings and were never meant to be IN the Bible as part of the Gospels.

Today's New Testament is based on a Greek translation. There is no earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or the Apostles.

There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the revelation on the Road to Damascus.

There is ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.

Vince ... "God is Dead" was first proclaimed well over 100 years ago ... it was just echoed within our cultural memory during the 60's, by an Anglican Bishop.

Wikipedia: [Nietzsche's] death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any ... cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the "will to power" that he described as "the essence of reality". Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He saw himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra, Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical orientation to future generations to overcome the impending nihilism.

Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie for Hitler was called "Triumph of the Will."

At last report, Nietzsche, Hitler, and Bishop Robinson were all still dead ... and none expected that condition to ever change in the future.

The Jesus of the bible claimed otherwise: "I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore."

If the Ghost of Christmas Future ever comes to your house on Christmas eve, you'll see that in the future you and everybody you know will be dead -- buried, cremated, nuclear-weapon-vaporized, or just entropied out by the heat death of the universe -- in your expectation. The non-trivial discussion on this website about a personal, Christian creation vs. an impersonal 'Darwinian' cosmology has huge implications about how to live, why to live, how to die, and whether we will remain dead for all eternity. Paul the Apostle well understood cosmic Nihilism when he wrote: If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 01:53PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>

yup - the universally accepted term is science

--------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> If you can
> > provide me with a better term than "Darwinism"
> to
> > describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be
> glad
> > to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
> >
>


Reality.

I like Alistair Begg's take on Christianity. He says that "Rationalism" is dead. In other words, you can't rationalize a path to Christ through reason.

I believe this is true. You can't use rational thought. You have to "just believe."

The problem is, God, if he does exist, gave us the ability to reason.

Seems like a conflict to me.

WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament is based on a Greek translation. There is no earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or the Apostles."

Ness asks/notes:

1) Must all history be written in the language of its subjects? More to the point, if God writes history, must he do so in a specific language?

2) In Acts 21, Paul is recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?" [the commander] replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people." Having received the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic: Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 02:43PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."

Supposedly, God created the different languages to thwart the building of the Tower of Babel. The tallest building in the world is 2,684 feet, and I don't think they would have been able to outdo that in 10,000 BC. So why did God stop them, anyway?

I was going to write more, but it's really just repeating what others have written, i.e., why give us reasoning if we're not supposed to use it?

Also, how can God write history? He tells men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell even more men, and someone finally decides to write it down into a different language that we're supposed to blindly accept. If we still cannot accurately translate Chinese to English and vice versa, how can we possibly believe that a dead language was translated properly into an archaic language that was translated properly into modern English?

It's suspect. Having faith is OK, but expecting people to have faith on a flawed premise is not.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does is cut and paste from some web site if christian voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey day.

Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."

Paul didn't write the four Gospels.

My point about the Greek being that the Gospels were written long, long after the events by people who were not there.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!

It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief, God is not an American.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!

I would have no problem with a vengeful God if he smited evil doers. He doesn't. The evil doers live in multi-million dollar Penthouses in New York while his God-fearing followers are blowing their brains out because they haven't worked in six months. Eliot's answer? "God works in mysterious ways." Not sure how that is a better answer than, "There is no God."

WashingTone Locian wrote: There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the revelation on the Road to Damascus. ... There is ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.

Ness notes:

1) My brother, who holds a Ph.D. in New Testament from Cambridge, happened to call a moment ago ... he is not aware of any serious scholarly debate about the authorship of the Pauline epistles (though obviously none of us really 'knows' who wrote any ancient document because we were not there to observe the writing).

2) What 'debate' is there about two Pauls -- one on the road to Damascus v. the one who wrote the letters? E.g., Galatians: "I did not receive it [the Gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ....But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus."

3) My brother's Ph.D. was precisely about Pauline ethics in re: men/women ... he is not aware of any historical indication that a woman ever "served as a Rabbi."

4) The Bible does not assert that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. You may be thinking of "DaVinci Code" speculation about her relationship with Jesus, and/or 5th century Catholic Church intimations that she was a 'prostitute.' Mary Magdalene is most mentioned when she was present at the Crucifixion ... in Mark, we read "Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome." ... at the tomb "Joseph [of Amamathea] bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. ... and later at the [empty] tomb: "When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb."

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 04:38PM by Eliot Ness.

MrJerkOff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he
> does
> > is cut and paste from some web site if
> christian
> > voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his
> hey
> > day.
> >
> > Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> > god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> > about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
>
> It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to
> contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief,
> God is not an American.


Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to say other then some insult aimed at me. You really must have a lot of free time on your hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit in the corner..and play with it!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day
> one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to
> say other then some insult aimed at me. You
> really must have a lot of free time on your
> hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit
> in the corner..and play with it!

Forgive me. It's not easy to have a discussion with a retarded brick wall.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Ness said to Pangloss: If you can provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"

Nutters responded: "Science." Ness asks: Which 'science?' Today's received orthodoxy? ... or tomorrow's new orthodoxy?

WL responded: "Reality." Ness asks: Which 'reality?' ... today's hotly debated theoretical construct that includes unobservable n-dimensional 'strings?'

It is my observation that contemporary thought just hates the idea of being 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the possibility of createdness with the attendant possibility of true moral guilt.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 03:53PM by Eliot Ness.

WL wrote: I would have no problem with a vengeful God if he [smote] evildoers. He doesn't. The evildoers live in multi-million dollar penthouses in New York while his God-fearing followers are blowing their brains out because they haven't worked in six months. Eliot's answer? "God works in mysterious ways." Not sure how that is a better answer than, "There is no God."

"God works in mysterious ways" ... that's not my answer. Paul wrote about the ultimate justice of God: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

N.B. that many Bible commentators point to an Egyptian custom of "carrying burning coals overhead" to expressing repentance and ask forgiveness. It so, the phrase represents compassion, not vengeance. N.B. too that Christians expect to NOT face the wrath of God because, amazingly, Christ faced it in their place.

I'd make the point that our 'Darwinist' friends have no expectation of 'justice' whatsoever, either in this life or any other. In an uncreated universe, 'Justice' is a meaningless term, a Romantic concept that 'evolved' along with the human brain. To the degree that modern American Man talks about and desires 'Justice' (after all, Law and Order and CSI are big hits), he is borrowing from our residual Christian moral heritage. Christians, however, are not surprised to see human cultures universally think in terms of 'Justice' because the Bible depicts a God who created Man in his own image and who from the beginning, immediately after the Fall, talks about administering justice to Satan: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he [Jesus] will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Neither Law and Order nor CSI makes any sense in an uncreated 'Darwinian' cosmology. They do in a created cosmos, where God has said: "Hate evil; love good. Maintain justice in the courts." (Amos 5)

HERE is a rather well-written consideration of God's "wrath" and "anger" as described in the Bible ... one may dismiss this as mere Christian mythology, but the article is true to the content of the OT and NT. Christians might wish that this weren't true ... that the God of the Bible were amorphous 'love' without 'wrath' ... but that's not Christianity, which revolves around Christ's substitutionary atonement on the Cross (famously, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son [to be crucified in the place of others]").

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 05:44PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> Memo to Pangloss -- Wikipedia says this about
> contemporary usage of the term "Darwinism:"
>
> "Darwinism is a term used for various movements or
> concepts related to ideas of transmutation of
> species or evolution, including ideas with no
> connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The
> meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and
> depends on who is using the term."

Do you realize that is VAGUE, Eliot? Which is why I constantly ask you to clarify your use of the term.

This is how YOU are using the term: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief"

> To most readers on this forum, "Darwinism" denotes
> contemporary popular cosmology, a world-view which
> posits that everything that exists around us,
> originated from a mysterious impersonal 'Big Bang'
> 'singularity' and is expanding toward an
> inevitable 'heat death' (which is well describe by
> Lon Solomon as "Fade to black!").Where Christians
> see a created cosmos whose "heavens declare the
> glory of God," contemporary "Darwinian" Man
> presupposes the uniformity of natural causes in a
> closed system ... viz., despite all of the

B.S., Eliot - that's how YOU are using it. You have failed to argue that non christians must use it this way.

Therefore we can ignore it.

> structure around us, we crash around in an
> uncreated, undesigned cosmos wherein all events
> result from impersonal matter/energy + time +
> chance because there is no 'person' outside of
> space/time ... and wherein human death is merely
> the disintegration of a chance collocation of
> atoms (e.g. George Wald's "collection of molecules
> called Shakespeare").

Sorry but please provide a source, you have been shown to be dishonest in your quotes before, so we cannot just accept this as an accurate presentation of Wald's opinion.

Remember, honesty first Eliot.

> It's not too much to call today's 'Star Trek'
> cosmology, our popular 'religion' ... because it
> is accepted by the masses, who are preached to by
> authorities whose world-view rejects a priori any
> concept of created 'design' (let alone any moral
> 'Fall' by Man and subsequent 'Curse' and
> 'Redemption' by a creator God).

You call it 'star trek' and a 'religion' because you do not understand it. You fall victim to Arthur C Clark's view of advanced science equally magic.

Further, you must argue for your assertions (bald as they are) that we reject 'a priori' design or that we suppose naturalism.

Again, I must remind you to be honest Eliot.

> The recent "Dark Knight" Batman film made a
> profound statement when a character said: "In a
> cruel world, the only justice is chance." In a
> 'Star Trek' cosmos, there may be a law against
> Michael Vick's cruelty to dogs, but there is no
> cosmological reason to oppose it ... just a
> sociological consensus.To play the 'Nazi' card ...

Sorry Eliot, I don't believe you - argue for this or retract your dishonesty.

> Goebbels espoused a form of racist 'Social
> Darwinism' consistent with an impersonal universe:

Do you worship Goebbels? Otherwise his opinion is worthless here.

> "Our starting-point is not the individual, and we
> do not subscribe to the view that one should feed
> the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe
> the naked — those are not our objectives. Our
> objectives are entirely different. They can be put
> most crisply in the sentence: we must have a
> healthy people in order to prevail in the world."
> Men wind up living, and dying, where their
> presuppositions carry them. I submit that Goebbels
> was intellectually consistent to his 'Darwinian'
> cosmology. So was the famous Christian thinker
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived in a Christian
> cosmology, and as a cost of discipleship gave up
> his life protecting Jews ... loving his neighbor
> as Christ commanded. The difference is that
> Bonhoeffer expected to be raised from the dead by
> Jesus, who said "My Father's will is that everyone
> who looks to the Son and believes in him shall
> have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
> last day." Goebbels, in contrast, expected to
> remain dead for all eternity ... which makes his
> active, cruel 'Darwinian' life in service of the
> Master Race, all the more meaningless!If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>


Blah, blah, Eliot - this must be argued for, not asserted. You are failing to convince anyone and your reasoning is uninspired and uncompelling.

> None, unless there is a God with a
> character that includes wrath as well as love ...

Nope, even then it's nonsensical.

> which is what the Bible describes from beginning
> to end, Genesis to Revelation.It is the wrath of
> God toward fallen men, that Christ bears upon the
> Cross ... showing 'love' by bearing that 'wrath'
> in the place of others ... and you're right that

But...Jesus doesn't actually take the place of other...So even your viewpoint is incoherent.

> it makes no sense in a non-Christian cosmology.Few
> and far between have been the Nihilists and
> Anarchists, but they are really the most
> consistent of modern, non-Christian men. If we are

Again Eliot, you must be *honest* and argue for this, not just assume it.

> just complex machines, then nothing really matters
> -- even if we inconsistently preach and promote
> borrowed Christian values such as compassion,
> etc.It's fascinating that the worst modern
> political tyrannies which deify the State, such as
> Nazism and Communism, preach Heaven-on-Earth but
> produce Hell-on-Earth.


Actually Christianity borrows these views from the natural world, since Christianity is ultimately inconsistent (as I've shown and you've failed to refute).

This is a discussion board Eliot, not a 'assume Eliot tells the truth' board.

You have to argue for your point of view, not just have faith in it. Further, you need to be honest with your assertions.

> Vince ... "God is Dead" was first proclaimed well
> over 100 years ago ... it was just echoed within
> our cultural memory during the 60's, by an
> Anglican Bishop.Wikipedia: death of God is a way
> of saying that humans are no longer able to
> believe in any ... cosmic order since they
> themselves no longer recognize it. The death of
> God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the
> rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order
> but also to a rejection of absolute values
> themselves — to the rejection of belief in an
> objective and universal moral law, binding upon
> all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an
> absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism.
> This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a
> solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of
> human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking
> for foundations that went deeper than Christian
> values. He would find a basis in the "will to
> power" that he described as "the essence of
> reality".

I'm guessing you've never read Nietzsche, have you? This quote is in reference to values in Christian Europe AFTER Christianity had fallen away. He's not arguing that there wouldn't be a replacement (he suggests the overman as one). His argument is that there would be a void since Christianity replaced the prior morality (of ancient rome/greece).

> Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did
> not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this
> death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst.
> Therefore, when the death did begin to become
> widely acknowledged, people would despair and
> nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why
> Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He saw
> himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra,
> Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical
> orientation to future generations to overcome the
> impending nihilism.Leni Riefenstahl's famous
> propaganda movie for Hitler was called "Triumph of
> the Will." At last report, Nietzsche, Hitler, and
> Bishop Robinson were all still dead ... and none
> expected that condition to ever change in the
> future.The Jesus of the bible claimed otherwise:

This is why I believe you've never read Nietzsche and that you don't understand him. Nietzsche wasn't arguing for immortality. In fact, immortality goes squarely against his values and as he argues is VERY nihilistic (you ignored this objection).

> "I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am
> alive forevermore."If the Ghost of Christmas
> Future ever comes to your house on Christmas eve,
> you'll see that in the future you and everybody
> you know will be dead -- buried, cremated,
> nuclear-weapon-vaporized, or just entropied out by
> the heat death of the universe -- in your
> expectation. The non-trivial discussion on this
> website about a personal, Christian creation vs.
> an impersonal 'Darwinian' cosmology has huge
> implications about how to live, why to live, how
> to die, and whether we will remain dead for all
> eternity.Paul the Apostle well understood cosmic
> Nihilism when he wrote: If the dead are not
> raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we
> die."

Actually Paul embraces nihilism and his view (and in turn, Christians) don't value *this* life, which is the only life we have. This is why Christianity is truly nihilistic and why naturalism (or systems that reject immortality) are the ONLY one's that CAN value this life.

> Ness said to Pangloss: If you can provide me with
> a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our
> contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it.
> Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"Nutters responded:
> "Science." Ness asks: Which 'science?' Today's
> received orthodoxy? ... or tomorrow's new
> orthodoxy?WL responded: "Reality." Ness asks:
> Which 'reality?' ... today's hotly debated
> theoretical construct that includes unobservable
> n-dimensional 'strings?'It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.


More unsupported nonsense.

Face it Eliot, you don't understand science and that's why you are drawn to Christianity. It's simple and makes you feel good.
Attachments:

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).




Please answer Eliot.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> > subscribe to chance when talking of evolution
> (do
> > you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> > "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that
> there
> > is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> > everything, including people. To those who
> hold
> > this view, everything people are or do is
> > explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> > ...
>
> This doesn't support your assertion, please try
> again.
>
> > "In one form of reductionism, man is explained
> by
> > reducing him to the smallest particles which
> make
> > up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> > molecule or the energy particle, more complex
> bu
> > not intrinsically different."
>
> 1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
> 2. This doesn't support your assertion.
> 3. This commits the logical fallacy of
> composition.
>
>
> > "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> > than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> > George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> > University, was also there lecturing to the
> same
> > group. He expressed with great force the modern
> > concept that all things, including man, are
> merely
> > the product of chance. After he had stressed
> over
>
> Please provide some support for this, your word is
> not good enough. A biologist would be familar
> with the theory of evolution, which is not a
> chance endeavor.
>
> > and over again that all things, beginning from
> the
> > molecule and ending with man, are only a
> product
> > of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago
> there
> > was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> > which produced Hamlet." According to these
> > theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> > beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried
> to
> > make himself autonomous, but rather than
> becoming
> > great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> > collection of molecules -- and nothing more."
>
> Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly
> not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly
> pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone
> with any sense can see that natural selection is a
> *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance'
> process.
>
> My guess is that you are taking his words out of
> context and as a result you are actively lying
> about what he intended to his words - like you did
> last time that I caught you doing this.
>
> > " equation of the impersonal plus time plus
> chance
> > producing the total configuration of the
> universe
> > and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> > faith.
>
> Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In
> fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that
> mankind is a product of evolution, which is the
> antithesis of chance.
>
> > And if one does in faith accept this, with
> > what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> > Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> > value. It was the same one with which English
> > philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> > and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> > the final value is the biological continuity of
> > the human race. If this is the only final
> value,
> > one is left wondering why this then has
> > importance."
>
> You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of
> those people are dead. Further this is an opinion
> and not rationally argued for - ergo we can
> dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.
>
> > "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> > that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> > this position cannot live like machines! If
> they
> > could, there would have been no tensions in
> their
> > intellectual position or in their lives. But
> even
> > people who believe they are machines cannot
> live
> > like machines, and thus they must "leap
> upstairs"
> > against their reason and try to find something
> > which gives meaning to life, even though to do
> so
> > they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer
>
>
> Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually
> impressive and there is no reason to accept what
> he said. You most certainly have failed to argue
> for any of the positions he's put forth.


Please answer.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in
> this
> > > way, as God could not possess these
> attributes
> > in
> > > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > > Freud's view.
> >
> > What is your meaning here - that Freud said
> that
> > mankind fabricated god in the image of his
> parent?
> > Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
> >
> > > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> > Bible,
> > > and is used by Jesus and God to describe
> their
> > > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear
> ye
> > > him.")
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> > are
> > > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman
> Catholicism
> > has
> > > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > > plays only a small role in the NT after
> Jesus'
> > > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > > Chapter 1.
> >
> > Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> > Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> > wife?
> >
> > > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> > known
> > > to human beings."
> >
> > Not really - if god is infinite and has
> infinite
> > attributes, then an entity with finite
> attributes
> > and finite understanding could not, by
> definition,
> > understand the infinite being.
> >
> > > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> > language?
> >
> > You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> > testament god basically explained his ways as
> > being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> > book of job in some other way?
> >
> > > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition
> that
> > God
> > > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
> >
> > Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> > the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> > incoherency, as an example I submit the
> trinity,
> > which they believed was beyond reason. Read
> The
> > History Of God, if you want the full story.
> >
> > > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > > personal God communicated with his personal
> > > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> > Moses
> > > and the Prophets.
> > > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> > have
> > > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> > "the
> > > Father"),
> > > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> > Jesus'
> > > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> > scripture
> > > is god-breathed.
> > > In fact, the word 'prophet' means
> 'spokesman'
> > > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described
> the
> > > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > > importantly they spoke human words to human
> > beings
> > > as given to them by God.
> >
> > In all fairness you are cherry picking
> Christian
> > beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> > Christianity? The book of thomas?
> >
> > This next section really diminishes my respect
> for
> > you Elliot. You succumb to passing on
> creationist
> > dishonesty through quote mining. Either you
> have
> > not read the original sources or you have and
> you
> > persist in passing on dishonesty.
> >
> > Please list the context of these quotes, as
> they
> > make no sense:
> >
> > > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> > assumed
> > > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
> system,
> > I
> > > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> > 350.
> >
> > This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> > earlier periods - the Precambrian!
> >
> > > “The case at present must remain
> > inexplicable,
> > > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> > against
> > > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> > anatomy
> > > appears in the fossil record for the first
> time
> > > ... The Precambrian record is now
> sufficiently
> > > good that the old rationale about
> undiscovered
> > > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> > no
> > > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An
> Asteroid
> > to
> > > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
> >
> > This is completely dishonest as it spins
> Gould's
> > words as those of someone who doesn't accept
> that
> > transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> > Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould
> or
> > you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
> >
> > Do you know what his theory for the mechanism
> of
> > evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What
> he
> > is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie,
> a
> > smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> > Instead, evolution works on long periods of
> status
> > followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> > periods of change. That's why he specifically
> > says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
> >
> > You are being dishonest here or you didn't do
> your
> > due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> > >
> > >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims
> to
> > be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it
> (and
> > Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
> >
> > Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> > specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
> >
> > Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to
> find
> > Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of
> Destiny?
> > Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> > Nordic influences, Christian influences, and
> many
> > other influences. It is not honest to simply
> > forget the other influences and to blame it on
> > Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> > btw).
> >
> > My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> > either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> > edification, what was the mechanism of
> selection
> > for Stalinist communism?
> >
> > Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> > even if what you say was true (which it isn't,
> as
> > I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> > christianity is correct. So at best, if you
> are
> > right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> > accepting christianity.
>
>
> Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with
> dishonest quote mining.

Please learn to be honest Eliot.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend
> an
> > eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third
> day.
> > However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> > suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for
> many,
> > many humans.
>
> Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment.
>
> Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the
> bible? Are you making things up Eliot?
>
> > 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> > "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> > angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say
> that
> > Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> > resting place of the dead.
>
> No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible
> state this, Eliot?
>
> > 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement
> for
> > 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's
> prerogative,
> > your feelings notwithstanding.
>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>
> Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red
> herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although
> I'm sensing you don't have a problem with
> dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.
>
> Please be more honest in your future posts.


Plenty of unanswered questions for you Eliot.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.


That's like saying we hate the idea that we're all going to sprout feathers on April 10th

Meaningless

Just wait until His Noodliness the FSM makes his triumphant appearance on September 19th - he'll kick all your butts with his noodly appendages

Not only that, our guidelines for living are better than yours any day - I try to live by No 5.

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" of Pastafarinism

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go fuck yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[clip images]

+1

WL wrote: "Paul didn't write the four Gospels. My point about the Greek being that the Gospels were written long, long after the events by people who were not there."

OK, let's posit that only one Apostle, Paul, spoke Greek. Here's Paul's (Greek language) very high view of Scripture: "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... "All scripture [is] god-breathed."

The issue is not the languages of the Bible or the distance of the authors from events, but the involvement of God in writing the words ... from Moses to John on the island of Patmos.

Both the OT and the NT are full of 1) historical assertions and 2) descriptions of thoughts that are in the minds of men and women ... thoughts that were formed in languages other than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek [the biblical languages].

If the God of the Bible could inspire men's writing, then it's obviously conceivable that they could ...     *** accurately describe events that they themselves had not witnessed (such as Moses' account of human history, beginning with Adam)     *** accurately describe thoughts and motivations in other men's minds. (E.g., "When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.")

Heh...This conversation with Eliot also reminds me of the following image...
Attachments:

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WL wrote: "Paul didn't write the four Gospels. My
> point about the Greek being that the Gospels were
> written long, long after the events by people who
> were not there."OK, let's posit that only one
> Apostle, Paul, spoke Greek. Here's Paul's (Greek
> language) very high view of Scripture: "pasa
> graphe theopneustos" ... "All scripture
> god-breathed."The issue is not the languages of
> the Bible or the distance of the authors from
> events, but the involvement of God in writing the
> words ... from Moses to John on the island of
> Patmos.Both the OT and the NT are full of 1)
> historical assertions and 2) descriptions of
> thoughts that are in the minds of men and women
> ... thoughts that were formed in languages other
> than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek .If the God of the
> Bible could inspire men's writing, then it's
> obviously conceivable that they could ...  
>   *** accurately describe events that they
> themselves had not witnessed (such as Moses'
> account of human history, beginning with Adam)
>     *** accurately describe thoughts and
> motivations in other men's minds. (E.g., "When
> Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because
> for a long time he had been wanting to see him.
> From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see
> him perform some miracle.")


Let's remember that 'all scripture is god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament, NOT the new.

Sigh. Pangloss ... always making accusations of intellectual dishonesty and fabrication.

Pangloss: "The bible says a lot of illogical nonsense - please demonstrate how it's logically consistent to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal punishment."       Ness: Who says that Christ's sacrifice, though limited in its intent, was merely 'finite.' http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html

Pangloss: "Where does the bible state [that Jesus was in 'Sheol/Hades' rather than in 'Hell?'"       Ness: Here's a good article: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html

Pangloss: "It's a question of logic and reasoning; ... suffering ... [is] incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god."       Ness: You're always roping God and dragging him into the created cosmos in order to say what could, or couldn't, be true about God. http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 07:25PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html

What an excellent site - the highest density of BS on the Internet (present company excepted of course) - we have a winner!!!!!

This is a cracker:

"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition."

so to paraphrase - 'I've imagined something so it must be true' - sums religion up perfectly


Brilliant - you couldn't make this stuff up!

Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves you that much more... May you all experience the awakening that fills the void that's so obviously missing in you lives. None of us understands the mystery of life, death, and what happens after death but it is possible to have an actual relationship with God when we seek to know him.

More Than A Believer Wrote:
>>> you spent so much time trying to convince yourselves that God is dead to what purpose.


As opposed to the thousands of years, millions of innocent lives, and countless wars to prove that God isn't dead? To what purpose?

Pangloss: "Let's remember that 'all scripture is god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament, NOT the new."

Ness: True ... however Paul clearly considered his teachings and writings to be authoritative scripture too: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Peter agreed: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Actually, the Hulk is the greatest thing I can conceive. All hail the Incredible Hulk!

Why do you think Monotheism became such a big hit? When people were still living in caves, they believed that a god or goddess made it storm. As man progressed, science began to explain these phenomenon. The more people learned, the less superstitious they became.

Kings and emperors realized that Christianity was a simple religion to convert people to. Instead of trying to teach a conquered populace about an entirely new pantheon of gods, all they had to do was tell the ignorant masses, "Our god is the right god. Your gods are demons. Our god will burn you for all of eternity if you don't worship him. But he loves you, and just wants us all to be nice to each other."

For more information on the importance of sharing the same religion as the land you're trying to conquer, google "American invasion of Iraq."

People use God to fill in any unknown gaps in their life, and since death is the Ultimate Unknowable, religion will always exist in some form. However, I believe that any god or goddess ever is only as real as the individual feels. Maybe someday science will find a way to determine once and for all whether or not there is life after death, but in the meantime, believe in whatever gives you strength and makes sense to you.

Just keep that shit to yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.


nah - I think we have a good handle on life (its called biology), death (you see it as it is) and what happens afterward (nothing)

no void in my life thank you very much - life's hunk-dory - but thanks for asking

keep deluding yourselves, just stop indoctrinating kids, bringing the religious drivel into the public square and asking for tax breaks

Nutters ... just FYI, I have the same problem with the Scholastic rationalist 'ontological' argument for God that I have with Pangloss's critiques ... both insist upon pulling God into the created cosmos and then dictating what could, or could not be true about Him, based upon what the mind of Man determines: "The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition."

Much of the Bible's seeming logical contradiction stems from its statements about a completely sovereign, uncreated God interacting with men and angels who are created, subordinate, and yet historically and morally significant.

Note, for example, that Exodus says both that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" ... and just leaves it there. Both are true, yet Pharaoh is guilty. http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Pharaoh.htm

"(Exo 4:21 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

(Exo 8:15 NIV) But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Christians, like scientists trying to describe wave/particles, have to deal with the phenomena they observe in the Bible even when it makes their [finite, created] heads hurt. This is what Schaeffer called "bowing the knee metaphysically." The God of the Bible purports to knows what is real within himself and within his creation. (Note the predictive statement to Moses about what Pharaoh will do in the future, and the as-it-were mind-reading statement about Pharaoh's hardening of his heart.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 09:12PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote:
> There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote
> the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the
> revelation on the Road to Damascus. ... There is
> ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a
> prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of
> Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.Ness
> notes:1) My brother, who holds a Ph.D. in New
> Testament from Cambridge, happened to call a
> moment ago ... he is not aware of any serious
> scholarly debate about the authorship of the
> Pauline epistles (though obviously none of us
> really 'knows' who wrote any ancient document
> because we were not there to observe the
> writing).2) What 'debate' is there about two Pauls
> -- one on the road to Damascus v. the one who
> wrote the letters? E.g., Galatians: "I did not
> receive it from any man, nor was I taught it;
> rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus
> Christ....But when God, who set me apart from
> birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to
> reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him
> among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor
> did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were
> apostles before I was, but I went immediately into
> Arabia and later returned to Damascus."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Authorship


3) My
> brother's Ph.D. was precisely about Pauline ethics
> in re: men/women ... he is not aware of any
> historical indication that a woman ever "served as
> a Rabbi."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene#Gospel_of_Mary

4) The Bible does not assert that Mary
> Magdalene was a prostitute. You may be thinking of
> "DaVinci Code" speculation about her relationship
> with Jesus, and/or 5th century Catholic Church
> intimations that she was a 'prostitute.' Mary
> Magdalene is most mentioned when she was present
> at the Crucifixion ... in Mark, we read "Now when
> the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in
> this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly
> this man was God’s Son!’ There were also women
> looking on from a distance; among them were Mary
> Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
> younger and of Joses, and Salome." ... at the
> tomb "Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down
> the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it
> in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone
> against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene
> and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was
> laid. ... and later at the tomb: "When the
> sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
> mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that
> they might go and anoint him. And very early on
> the first day of the week, when the sun had risen,
> they went to the tomb."

WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel echoes) the idea that the Romans considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified him ... despite the fact both Herod and Pilate interrogated Jesus and found no fault in him. Indeed, the NT says a lot about Pilate's thought processes (there's that Biblical mind-reading thing again) as he actively sought to release Jesus and only reluctantly crucified him after Jewish insistence!

epagels@princeton.EDU

Jan 9, 2009

Dear Ms. Pagels,

Could you possibly point me to source documents for these History Channel statements about Roman involvement in the assassination of Jesus?

1) "The Romans thought of Jesus as a traitor to Rome, and one who was a dangerous man, and that's why he was crucified." (Elaine Pagels)

2) "According to the New Testament, to help identify the man to be crucified, Roman centurions bribed Judas, one of the twelve disciples." (History Channel narrator)

I've searched the BibleGateway website's New Testament, but cannot find material in support of these assertions. (Is Roman involvement addressed in any of your books about The Gnostic Gospels?)

Bribed by Romans: The NT states that Judas solicited - and got - a bribe from Jewish leaders not the Romans. Then one of the Twelve - the one called Judas Iscariot - went to the chief priests and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over. (Matthew 26) When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. (Matthew 27)

Traitor to Rome: The NT states that Pilate, the Roman governor, considered Jesus innocent of any Roman crime and indeed sought to release him. Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" ... Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." (John 18) From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free. (John 19) "What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. [Pilate] took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. (Matthew 27)

Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 10:12PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sigh. Pangloss ... always making accusations of
> intellectual dishonesty and fabrication.Pangloss:

I've demonstrated it. You are ignoring it, please address your quote mine of Stephen Gould.

> "The bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment."
>       Ness: Who says
> that Christ's sacrifice, though limited in its
> intent, was merely 'finite.'

Logic does.

> http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonem

Sorry but the author is clearly stretching.

> ent.htmlPangloss: "Where does the bible state
> incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god."
>       Ness: You're
> always roping God and dragging him into the
> created cosmos in order to say what could, or
> couldn't, be true about God.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html


In otherwords your god is incoherent. Whatever logical problems there are, you just ignore them.

The website fails the sniff test - one answer is an appeal to ignorance (ie, god is mysterious), where the reasonable answer is that such a god couldn't exist. We have to base our beliefs off of what we know, not what we don't. Ergo, the evidence of reality (and the character of god put forth in the bible), demonstrates that the rational conclusion is that such a god has inconsistent (contradictory) attributes.

The punishment excuse is laughable; no finite crime equates to an infinite punishment. Period.

The glorification excuse is downright absurd and contradicted with the characteristic of omnipotence.

> Pangloss: "Let's remember that 'all scripture is
> god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament,
> NOT the new."Ness: True ... however Paul clearly
> considered his teachings and writings to be
> authoritative scripture too: "Even if we or an
> angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
> than the one we preached to you, let him be
> eternally condemned! As we have already said, so
> now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a
> gospel other than what you accepted, let him be
> eternally condemned!"Peter agreed: "Bear in mind

Clearly you are stretching the meaning of this. It's not surprising though, you often stretch quotes to make them say what you want, thereby skewing the original intention.

> that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as
> our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the
> wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way
> in all his letters, speaking in them of these
> matters. His letters contain some things that are
> hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable
> people distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
> to their own destruction."

It's a shame that he didn't the gospels then. Of course they were written after he wrote his and they were all based on Mark, which was not an eyewitness.

In any event, most scholars (other then your 'cambridge brother') do not consider all of the writings in the bible attributable to Paul. Further, not all of Paul's letters are in tact. There is considerable evidence of forgery.

Ergo, we cannot trust the new testament, EVEN if Paul was talking about it (which he clearly wasn't) when he said 'scripture' is to be trusted.

> Nutters ... just FYI, I have the same problem with
> the Scholastic rationalist 'ontological' argument
> for God that I have with Pangloss's critiques ...

Oh, so you are going to address my arguments as opposed to ignoring them.

> both insist upon pulling God into the created
> cosmos and then dictating what could, or could not
> be true about Him, based upon what the mind of Man

So your refutation is that 'we cannot know god's ways'? I'm sorry, but that's completely irrational. If your beliefs are irrational, you should not hold them. Just because we do not know everything doesn't mean we have to IGNORE what we actually know. In order to form rational opinions we should examine the evidence we have and reason to the best conclusion.

The best conclusion of whether god exists or not is that he does not, based on the cosmological problems I've brought up.

> determines: "The most popular form of the
> ontological argument uses the concept of God to
> prove God’s existence. It begins with the
> definition of God as “that than which no greater
> can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist
> is greater than to not exist, and therefore the
> greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did
> not exist then God would not be the greatest
> conceivable being, but that would contradict God's
> very definition."Much of the Bible's seeming

I agree with Kant's objection of the ontological argument; ie, that existence is not a greatness. You either exist or you don't.

> logical contradiction stems from its statements
> about a completely sovereign, uncreated God
> interacting with men and angels who are created,
> subordinate, and yet historically and morally
> significant. Note, for example, that Exodus says
> both that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and that
> "Pharaoh hardened his heart" ... and just leaves
> it there. Both are true, yet Pharaoh is guilty.
> http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Pharaoh.ht
> m "(Exo 4:21 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, "When
> you return to Egypt, see that you perform before
> Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power
> to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will
> not let the people go."(Exo 8:15 NIV) But when
> Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his
> heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron,
> just as the LORD had said.Christians, like

So your rationalization is that A=A and A=~A?? God is above 'logic'? Is this your rebuttal.

I certainly hope not, as you are essentially admitting your entire belief system is irrational. Actually, it's worse then that, as you are reduced to believing in an incoherency. It's cognitive dissonance at it's worst.

> scientists trying to describe wave/particles, have
> to deal with the phenomena they observe in the
> Bible even when it makes their heads hurt. This

Um, no, not exactly. Light exhibits both properties, which suggests that we are missing a key concept - not a contradiction. There is a difference there that you do not seem to get. Further, we have empirical evidence of light and NONE of god (much less a Christian god).

> is what Schaeffer called "bowing the knee
> metaphysically." The God of the Bible purports to
> knows what is real within himself and within his
> creation. (Note the predictive statement to Moses
> about what Pharaoh will do in the future, and the
> as-it-were mind-reading statement about Pharaoh's
> hardening of his heart.)

We've already established that Schaeffer didn't know what he was talking about.

> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ... despite the fact both Herod and Pilate
> interrogated Jesus and found no fault in him.
> Indeed, the NT says a lot about Pilate's thought
> processes (there's that Biblical mind-reading
> thing again) as he actively sought to release
> Jesus and only reluctantly crucified him after
> Jewish insistence!

So now we should believe that you went to harvard, that your brother went to cambridge (sp?) and that you have talked with Pagels, and yet you can't even defend any of your beliefs with out quotes and web links?

Seriously Eliot, do you think anyone is buying your bilge?

> Maybe I'll excerpt some of that correspondence and
> drop it into this item.

Sure you will.
Attachments:

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Before we go any further Eliot, please
> demonstrate
> > that this universe requires a creator.
> >
> > This seems to be your fundamental sticking
> point
> > and although I've pointed out that this notion
> is
> > incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try
> a
> > different tact (the tact above).
>
>
>
>
> Please answer Eliot.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ...


It's not curious at all. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. The Jews did not Crucify. Historians point out that Romans pretty much Crucified anyone for anything on a regular basis. Despite the depictions in the Gospels, the Roman Governor made the final decision on Crucifixion, period.

This isn't getting anywhere. How about a simpler question:

Tastes great or less filling?

This applies to Eliot....

"There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This applies to Eliot....
>
> "There will be no art, no literature, no science.
> When we are omnipotent there will be no need of
> science. There will be no distinction between
> beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity,
> no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing
> pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."


I love that book. At the same time it achieves terror and stark realization about dogmatism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

WTL wrote: "Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. The Jews did not Crucify. Historians point out that Romans pretty much Crucified anyone for anything on a regular basis. Despite the depictions in the Gospels, the Roman Governor made the final decision on Crucifixion, period."

Ness asks: Are you referring to some source other than the Gospels?

Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"

"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"

They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" (John 18)

"Richard Dawkins. Britain's most famous atheist, argues in his book the God Delusion that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children." ... "Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and elders tell them, he argues, as trust and obedience are important for survival." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html

No Christian should be surprised that 'created' Man is almost incurably 'religious.' Even hard-core atheist statists like Communists had their sacred books, prophets, and a dream of a Heaven-on-Earth in the future.

Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into romantic personified language when talking about Evolution. A more accurate statement would have been for him to say that "trust and obedience to parents have survival value, favoring reproduction by such children"

Evolution doesn't 'do' anything ... it's just an interpretation of events ... but even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to live in an impersonal universe.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:08PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Richard Dawkins. Britain's most famous atheist,
> argues in his book the God Delusion that religion
> is propagated through indoctrination, especially
> of children." ... "Evolution predisposes children
> to swallow whatever their parents and elders tell
> them, he argues, as trust and obedience are
> important for survival."
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-113
> 6482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friend
> s.html

Have you read Dawkin's book? I'd wager not.

> No Christian should be surprised that 'created'
> Man is almost incurably 'religious.' Even
> hard-core atheist statists like Communists had
> their sacred books, prophets, and a dream of a
> Heaven-on-Earth in the future.

Actually it would go against the whole idea of free will. But as with most other things, when reality contradicts biblical ideas, either reality is ignored or christians suddenly claim that it was believed all along.

> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value."Evolution doesn't
> 'do' anything ... it's just an interpretation of
> events ... but even Dawkins, at some level,
> doesn't want to live in an impersonal universe.

Reality doesn't care about our wishes and desires Eliot.

Pangloss: "Reality doesn't care about our wishes and desires."

Ness: In the atheist's world-view there is no person 'out there' to either "care about our wishes and desires" or to 'do' anything at all ... which is precisely why it is so striking when an atheist like Dawkins slips into 'romantic' personified language to disparage those who do live in 'personal' universe.

In fact, it is striking when a person who holds an impersonal 'Darwinist' world-view, makes any moral assertion or value judgment at all, rather than asserting Nihilism.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:26PM by Eliot Ness.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."


I'm impressed with your Orwellian knowledge. I wish more people knew.

What bothers me is when believers always assume that non believers have some vast emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a deity. I find it more often the other way around. To me, believers always have this empty spot in the back of their mind that wants to ask questions and look at all possibilities, but are simply too terrified to open the door.

They can be scorned and otherwise mentally abused by their peers at the slightest sign of doubt. In addition, a large portion of society still discriminates against non believers and to suddenly "come out" could result in the loss of many friends, family and even employment. I think many more people would jump ship if it weren't for all this.

There are a growing number of christians who wish the old testament was never released because of all the unbelievable stories, contradictions, violence, incest, giants, people living 900 years, the age of the Earth, etc.....
They are desperately looking for answers and explanations which end up making themselves look even sillier (radio carbon dating doesn't work, noah's flood causing the Grand Canyon, peanut butter, ect...).

This is all going to come to head very soon and I don't think it's going to be pretty. At some point I envision some group of die hard religious nuts making a final stand against logic and reality (an American Taliban, if you will). It will be unsuccessful in the end, but not before many lives are lost.

Pangloss, last night ER had an episode about the death, in senile dementia, of the founding doctor of the fictional hospital ... he flat-lined, and it was over. Pfft ... the candle went out ... "fade to black."

The Press and the Public routinely show a morbid fascination with the 'last meal' and 'last words' of death-row prisoners.

And certainly the television public is fascinated by the subject of death: Law and Order and CSI have been big hits. Even 20/20 and Dateline have become almost all-murder-all-the- time.

I honestly think that much of the emotion that surrounds this discussion about McLean Bible Church, stems from the Church's position of speaking loud-and-clear, saying things that our contemporary culture does not want to hear -- specifically, about the Return of Christ, Resurrection, and Judgment. E.g., http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value, favoring reproduction
> by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do' anything
> ... it's just an interpretation of events ... but
> even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to live
> in an impersonal universe.
>
>

I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in anything other than an impersonal universe

Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of science - as such he writes in style that is designed to be accessible to the public - and does so very effectively

I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an excellent example of how to explain complex ideas to the lay public

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: "Reality doesn't care about our wishes
> and desires."Ness: In the atheist's world-view
> there is no person 'out there' to either "care
> about our wishes and desires" or to 'do' anything
> at all ... which is precisely why it is so
> striking when an atheist like Dawkins slips into
> 'romantic' personified language to disparage those
> who do live in 'personal' universe.In fact, it is
> striking when a person who holds an impersonal
> 'Darwinist' world-view, makes any moral assertion
> or value judgment at all, rather than asserting
> Nihilism.


I don't find it striking at all. Further, what evidence do you have that Dawkin's is a nihilist?

As I've pointed out and you've consistently ignored, the Christian worldview is actually nilistic and valueless.

> Pangloss, last night ER had an episode about the
> death, in senile dementia, of the founding doctor
> of the
> fictional hospital ... he flat-lined, and it was
> over. Pfft ... the candle went out ... "fade to
> black."

My guess is that you haven't had real extensive brushes with death. I have had such experiences and experiences with people I care about who have Alzheimer's (sp?).

There was no beauty in it, there is no granduer, no god, but what there is, is reality. The death made my time with that person that much more valuable.

Something the Christian has no concept of.

> The Press and the Public routinely show a
> morbid fascination with the 'last meal' and 'last
> words' of death-row prisoners.And certainly the
> television public is fascinated by the subject of
> death: Law and Order and CSI have been big hits.
> Even 20/20 and Dateline have become almost
> all-murder-all-the-
> time.I honestly think that much of the
> emotion that surrounds this discussion about
> McLean Bible Church, stems from the Church's
> position of speaking loud-and-clear, saying things
> that our
> contemporary culture does not want to hear --
> specifically, about the Return of Christ,
> Resurrection, and Judgment. E.g.,
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883

I think you are incorrect. Dealing with believers is often frustrating. Take yourself, for instance, you ignore everything that contradicts your worldview and you keep spouting the same mistruths over and over again - as though repeating them some how makes them true.

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> > romantic personified language when talking
> about
> > Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> > been for him to say that "trust and obedience
> to
> > parents have survival value, favoring
> reproduction
> > by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do'
> anything
> > ... it's just an interpretation of events ...
> but
> > even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to
> live
> > in an impersonal universe.
> >
> >
>
> I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in
> anything other than an impersonal universe
>
> Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of
> science - as such he writes in style that is
> designed to be accessible to the public - and does
> so very effectively
>
> I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an
> excellent example of how to explain complex ideas
> to the lay public


Eliot is making it up. At best he would pull a quote out of context - as he did with Gould - and misrepresent Dawkin's dishonestly.

Numbers wrote: "What bothers me is when believers always assume that non believers have some vast emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a deity."

Ness replies: Because we generally tend to live in deep denial of for our forthcoming death, I suspect that most people only feel that emptiness as they are about to die ... and must consider the prospect of annihilation and non-being, saying 'Goodbye, forever' to everybody and everything they know.

I heard a man once, in a hospital cardiac unit, breathing roughly and crying out in distress: "I'm dying! I'm dying!"

The nurse I asked wouldn't tell me directly, later, if he survived or not ... but I got the impression from her measured response that he had indeed died.

Consider the possibility that Christians who have been seen the "Ghost of Christmas Future" (so to speak) have been to the edge of that cliff and are aware of that emptiness in a way that others are not.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers wrote: "What bothers me is when believers
> always assume that non believers have some vast
> emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a
> deity."Ness replies: Because we generally tend to
> live in deep denial of for our forthcoming death,

Exactly! Which is the reason Christian's do not value *this* life. The only real life that exists.

Atheists (most, not all) do not live in denial and as a result it is only they who can truly value this life (or believers who do not believe in an afterlife).

Yet you mistakenly and repeatedly assert that it is the non christian that is the nihilist.

> I suspect that most people only feel that
> emptiness as they are about to die ... and must
> consider the prospect of annihilation and
> non-being, saying 'Goodbye, forever' to everybody
> and everything they know. I heard a man once, in a
> hospital cardiac unit, breathing roughly and
> crying out in distress: "I'm dying! I'm dying!"The
> nurse I asked wouldn't tell me directly, later, if
> he survived or not ... but I got the impression
> from her measured response that he had indeed
> died.Consider the possibility that Christians who
> have been seen the "Ghost of Christmas Future" (so
> to speak) have been to the edge of that cliff and
> are aware of that emptiness in a way that others
> are not.


Dieing is what gives this life value. The realization that this is it is what fills one with respect for life. I would wager that this life is FAR more important to me then it is to you Eliot.

Only because its Friday and you've all been very good

http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.

Do you know why we rant against you and other christians on this board? its not because we like to waste time or energy, or that we have some empty void that needs to be filled with hatred. Its the fact that you control every aspect of our daily life. This country is a christian country, and as such laws and social behaviors are defined by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican party) think they have a stranglehold on morality. And thus they think they are always on the side of right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it would be to not be a christian, and have to on a daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to listen to why gays should not be married, why the word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off because you and your "beliefs" control every fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and never will believe in. I think you would be driven insane if you had to live in a muslim country, where their believes were not only forced down your throat on a daily basis, but also determined LAWS and FREEDOMS.

Whateva Wrote:
>
> Do you know why we rant against you and other
> christians on this board? its not because we like
> to waste time or energy, or that we have some
> empty void that needs to be filled with hatred.
> Its the fact that you control every aspect of our
> daily life. This country is a christian country,
> and as such laws and social behaviors are defined
> by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican
> party) think they have a stranglehold on morality.
> And thus they think they are always on the side of
> right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it
> would be to not be a christian, and have to on a
> daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to
> listen to why gays should not be married, why the
> word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we
> fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off
> because you and your "beliefs" control every
> fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and
> never will believe in. I think you would be driven
> insane if you had to live in a muslim country,
> where their believes were not only forced down
> your throat on a daily basis, but also determined
> LAWS and FREEDOMS.


You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Can't we all agree that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that the Jews killed Jesus, that anything like science or rational thought are all "The Devil's Delusion" and that because Eliot's brother has a Ph.D. from a school that teaches this crap that the works of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin simply do not matter at all?

I agree...Ive been born and aborted again!

The Borg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whateva Wrote:

>
> You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.


Yup, time to strip religion out of our currency, our Oath of Allegiance, our tax code and our politics - especially our foreign policy. All this BS that politicians have to kowtow to mad ministers and religious charlatans in order to get elected is just that, BS,

Get it away from kids - its the gateway drug to stupidity

Freedom from religion is what we need

	1) Hey, some of you who are here just to bash Christianity may be surprised to find yoursleves in agreement with Lon Solomon's criticisms of corruption and hypocrisy in the church. http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883.
	2) Some thoughts about the film "Milk" and Christianity.

1) Beautifully acted and compassionately filmed, it is certainly a legitimate candidate for best picture and best actor.

2) Harvey Milk was determined to liberate gays psychologically by bringing them 'out of the closet,' and to liberate them civically by passing civil rights laws and and obtaining public office.

3) Sadly, the Evangelicals in the film (spearheaded by Anita Bryant) appear determined to punish gays by legislating "God's law" into state law ... rather than addressing gay sexual issues by giving them the Gospel and the Bible.

4) I submit that the Christians really missed the boat in this case. Their approach is striking for its lovelessness, asymmetry, and absence of Biblical citations.

5) The Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and that "the wages of sin is death." Not just physical death, but a future eternal death -- away from the presence of God where Jesus describes guilt, depression, and pain in the form of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "unquenchable fire."

6) Christians often seem to forget this. It's not just the murderers on death row who are under death sentences, but also their guards and the warden. And it's not just not just gays and lesbians who are under death sentences, but straight men and women too.

7) In Old Testament Israel, where 100% of the people lived under laws delivered through Moses, God required that some offenses be punished by making physical death immediate; rather than dying of disease or old age, For example, Israelites were to be executed if guilty of witchcraft, homosexuality, adultery, or Sabbath violations.

8) Jesus' substitutionary death on the Cross made a sacrifice that did away with the civil and ceremonial laws given through Moses. (Indeed, the veil in the Temple was very symbolically torn in two.)

9) There is no reason for Christians today to make a special legal case by bringing OT law into current civil law to punish homosexuality (unless they bring all OT law into civil law against for example, adultery, witchcraft, and Sabbath violations).

10) Some churches crusade in public against homosexuality, shouting "God hates fags." This is repugnant because while Paul says "the wages of sin is death," he finishes the sentence by saying "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

11) Some Gays will hear the Gospel and will believe on the Christ of the Bible ... proving that God in fact loved them, even though they were "fags." This makes liars out of the aggressive churches that ignore current grace and focus only on future, final judgment.

12) Christian homosexuals cannot, however, simply remain "fags" in their Christian life ... because both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly tell them that their homosexuality is abnormal, is not created by God, and is therefore sinful.

13) Gay Christians cannot ignore what Paul says in Romans 1, that "men abandoning natural relations with women and being inflamed with lust for one another" are thereby "sinful" as are "women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones."

14) The Bible does not teach that Gay sinners are worse than, for example, heterosexual sinners who commit adultery, or practice witchcraft.

15) With their presuppositions changed by the Holy Spirit to believe that God speaks in the Bible, Gays who become Christians begin to fight against their sinful homosexuality, even though they may have been born with a same-sex preference that is just as deep as the cravings of a born alcoholic.

16) The New Testament doesn't record any specific interaction between Jesus and homosexuals, though he must have encountered them while dining with "publicans and sinners." The model for his treatment of those gays would certanly be what he said to the often-married woman at the Samaritan well, and what he said to the woman he saved from stoning for adultery -- sin no more!

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:40PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Hey, some of you who are here just to bash
> Christianity may be surprised to find yoursleves
> in agreement with Lon Solomon's criticisms of
> corruption and hypocrisy in the church.
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883.
>
> 2) Some thoughts about the film "Milk" and
> Christianity.

1) Well Trotsky and Stalin didn't exactly get on...Martin Luther and the Pope didn't exactly get on ... Doesn't say that any of them were right

The fact that Solomon and the other fools, thieves and charlatans fall out doesn't say much about any of them and is exactly in line with history

As long as people like Solomon keep pushing the religious lie, they are the enemy of the public

You've presented no evidence to counter modern science - your religion continues to be exposed for what it is - a tissue of old superstitions and pernicious self serving institutions that should be rooted out from modern society


2) Frankly, who gives a damn what a dead religion thinks about homosexuality and the ridiculous reasoning it uses?

Your ideas of sin are an outdated tool to scare and bully the uneducated.

There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as there's no sin in being black, or being left handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch. Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public and support the power of the religion and those with a stake in it.

Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown on the pyre of history with slavery and the inquisition

Nutters wrote: "The fact that Solomon and the other fools, thieves and charlatans fall out doesn't say much about any of them and is exactly in line with history. As long as people like Solomon keep pushing the religious lie, they are the enemy of the public.

Ness wonders:

1) On what basis do hurl calumny at the very decent Lon Solomon? Would you take no issue with me if without having met you, I called you, for example, a "pathological liar and homosexual pedophile?"

2) Do you detect the Fascist reverberations in your assertion that "religion ... a tissue of old superstitions and pernicious self-serving institutions" should be "rooted out from modern society?" How would you propose to do that? Would you, for example, start killing off Intelligent Design proponents the way that Lysenko killed off competing Mendelian Soviet biologists?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:45PM by Eliot Ness.

Nutters wrote:Your ideas of sin are an outdated tool to scare and bully the uneducated. There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as there's no sin in being black, or being left handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch. Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public and support the power of the religion and those with a stake in it. Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown on the pyre of history with slavery and the inquisition.

Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated. If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the citizenry doesn't like them? Do you consider the activities depicted in 'Law and Order' and 'CSI' to have any meaning at all, or are they just exercises in futility?

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:51PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote:Your ideas of sin are an outdated
> tool to scare and bully the uneducated.
>
> There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as
> there's no sin in being black, or being left
> handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch.
> Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public
> and support the power of the religion and those
> with a stake in it.
>
> Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown
> on the pyre of history with slavery and the
> inquisition. Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?


More context stripping from Eliot! Surprise surprise. Sin does not equal morality, Eliot. That is to say, that just because one doesn't believe in sin, doesn't mean they do not believe in objective morality. On the flip side, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they believe in objective morality.

For instance, take yourself. You believe in subjective morality - the 'might makes right' morality - that morality stems from or some how depends on god.

So to attempt to chastize Nutters on subjective morality is the HEIGHT of hypocrasy.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?

I'm more than happy to assert strongly that there is no absolute objective morality - we can see over history that human morals have been incredibly flexible depending on the local circumstances, and their analogs in other species even more so

We live in a social ecosystem that is more stable and hence more successful than ones with weaker rules in key areas

'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral basis, but is just a practical social adaptation.

Whereas ancient Sparta was very supportive of what we would now refer to as 'child abuse' and 'murder' and could be somewhat stable and tolerated at the size it achieved, its hard to see that acceptance enabling large cities and global trade at the levels we now.

Its not necessary to find and execute every offender, just enough to manage the risk and ensure that enough of the population are prepared to invest in the shared aims of the society (whether represented as family, law, equity, conquest, markets, large stone carvings or religion) and increase the chance that everyone gets fed and lives long enough to breed and bring up the next generation

Its a bit like clean water - without it, New York would be Delhi and you wouldn't have the efficiencies and effectiveness, placing you at a competitive disadvantage.

That may be economics or ensuring superiority in competition/conflict but its not an absolute morality

Pangloss: Just because one doesn't believe in sin, doesn't mean they do not believe in objective morality.

Ness: ??? Why would a 'Darwinian' believe in 'objective morality' that applied to all men? How would such morality be identified by the man-on-the-street? Isn't it all just a chance brain flash amongst the neurons of various differently-conditioned instantiations of the human species? What do you say to the cop arresting you for murder? Don't you say, "Leave me alone! Everything is absolutely relative!!"

Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral basis, but is just a practical social adaptation.

Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and niggers. Why is that?

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: Just because one doesn't believe in sin,
> doesn't mean they do not believe in objective
> morality.Ness: ??? Why would a 'Darwinian' believe
> in 'objective morality' that applied to all men?
> How would such morality be identified by the
> man-on-the-street? Isn't it all just a chance
> brain flash amongst the neurons of various
> differently-conditioned instantiations of the
> human species? What do you say to the cop
> arresting you for murder? Don't you say, "Leave
> me alone! Everything is absolutely relative!!"


You are being simple minded Eliot. There is no unified 'darwinian' worldview, ergo you cannot lump everyone who accepts modern science into one pigeon-holed category. This is something I'm metaphorically hoarse about, due to the number of times I've said it.

Again, not all atheists, subscribers to modern science, non christians, etc, are relativists.

If YOU Believe this then it's encumbant upon YOU to prove, not just blather on about as you are WANT TO DO.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors
> that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral
> basis, but is just a practical social
> adaptation.Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd
> object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to
> foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and
> niggers. Why is that?


And your true colors come out. Keep your racist B.S. to yourself.

Way to go Eliot.

The only difference between your morality and the one the state uses is that you believe that god can enforce it better then the state.

That's it. It's no more 'objective' then the states (actually less so).

If you believe otherwise you need to ARGUE for it, not just assert it.

And you say you actually went to college?

Pangloss, You have again and again leapt to make accusations of lying and hypocrisy ... to which is now swiftly added the charge of 'racism' for asking a hypothetical question. Furthermore, I am commanded to "keep your racist B.S. to yourself."

1) You (for some reason) believe that there can be objective morality. Nutters does not, and has said so clearly.

2) My question to Nutters was, if there is no objective morality why would one oppose the gassing of hated minorities ('Jews', 'niggers') by a majority (Aryans)?

3) I honestly think that in Nutters' world view of no moral absolutes, one can only oppose 'racism' as a matter of personal preference.

4) Where does your fierce opposition to 'racism' originate? From objective morality or just socially-conditioned personal feelings?

5) Christians in Nazi Germany, by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an objective authority, the 'second greatest commandment' given by Jesus -- to 'love your neighbor as yourself' -- and they were killed for speaking about it and practicing it. That same commandment is one of the reasons why Christian missionaries die serving hated minorities throughout the world, in contrast to the 'racists' and 'tribalists' who seek to exterminate them.

6) We fly and land where our world-view's presuppositions point us ... unless we operate (irrationally) in conflict with them.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:33PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians in Nazi Germany,
> by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an
> objective authority...

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

This thread is over.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' -- relating all things to Hitler.

But Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of irrational thinking -- in what (to Pangloss's distress) can be called a 'Darwinian' world-view -- where Hitler is reflexively hated as if there were moral absolutes that require men to behave differently from animals, from machines, and from Hitler.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:50PM by Eliot Ness.

Anybody who says that Christians tried to stop Hitler or the Nazis is kidding themselves. Maybe a few individuals recognized what kind of threat Hitler was, but Hitler actively recruited Christians...



Here's some Nazi quotes for you as well...

"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."

"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3