From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: Christians to the Lions
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:49:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <geiIz3i00Uh7A92lJz@andrew.cmu.edu> Raymond Craig Feeck <rf1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>There is a great deal of historical evidence that Jesus really did just
>that.  Much more than for many things historians consider "fact".  (For
>more on that topic, read a book of Christian apologetics.)

Excuse me?  If historians don't consider it fact then it can't really be
called "historical evidence", can it?  Oh... evidence is a "might be" fact
is an "is"...nevermind...

>If someone can show me that what I believe about Jesus is wrong, I'll
>change it.

The problem is you accept "evidence" as "fact".  You "believe", you do not
"know":

>At present I believe that Jesus was correct in stating that he is the
>truth.  If you give me sufficient reason to change it, I will.  

For others of us, we need sufficient reason, and we haven't seen it.

>Sorry, but Christians wrote the U.S. constitution which gives
>individuals rights.  Your whole notion of individual worth and rights
>came from all whole bunch of people convinced that Christianity is the
>truth. 

Uh... you don't really have the best grasp on history, do you?

>Oh, yes we believe that Christianity and Creation should be taught in
>the public schools because we believe them to be true.  Shouldn't we be
>teaching the truth in schools?  That is what it all boils down to.  Is
>it true?  

Maybe to you.  But not to me.  I'll allow the common truths, but not the
"truths" which we dispute.

>Jesus claimed to be the only way man could know God.  Either he is or isn't
>Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.  Either he was or wasn't.
>Jesus' disciples and all Christians claim that he arose from the dead. 
>Either he did, or he didn't.

You're on one side, I'm on the other.  Who is right?  Why?  Perhaps it is
neither of us...

>Yes, we do occasionally use the hellfire and brimstone approach, but you
>must realize that Jesus is calling for repentence, and if people are to
>repent, they need to see a need to repent.

Where did jesus call for repentence?

>Its as though you were standing a burning building.  A fireman comes to tell
>you that you need to get out or you will die and that by listening to him
>you can know how to save your life.  Will you resent the man who tells you
>this?  You don't have to believe him, but if you don't get out, you are in a
>lot of trouble.

But am I standing in a burning building?  You make this assumption a given
above, but am I really in a similar position spiritually?  I can see the
flames or smell the smoke of a burning building, but I haven't experienced
evidence that indicates I should take your advice.

The real problem with this is that it's not just one fireman, but a whole
f**king line of them who think that I haven't heard the message before.

I've heard you message, I'm not interested, please go away.  Now that I have
heard the message is there any way to get some kind of exemption so that I
don't have to hear it anymore?

>John 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
>our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I have no sins.  I have done nothing wrong.  There are no sins because there
is no law to transgress.  Isn't this easier?  It is for me.

Tim

Newsgroups: alt.satanism