Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:18:34 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Do you think this has anything to do with children anymore?
 <1993Jan21.140826.9766@sei.cmu.edu> <81343@hydra.gatech.EDU>

In article <81343@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
says:
>
>You aren't denying Jesus lived, but just denying that anything or most
>things recorded about him is inaccurate, correct?  Some say that
>Jesus was just one of many messiahs of that time.  Why did his
>followers seem so convienced and so his name and acts live on today?
>Could it be that He was THE Messiah, THE Christ?

There's lots of fanatics in the world. I don't know the answer to
your question, but I don't think he was the messiah. After all, he
claimed that it would all be over before that generation of people
died. Why should the fact that the church has lived on make me think
that they're right? We've managed to preserve much earlier philosophies
and religions; why do you think, for example, that Judaism isn't the
end of it? Why do you believe in a religion which is thousands of years
younger than something else? The reason is that relative age of a
religion means nothing.

>Assuming for the discussion that the events did occur as recorded in
>the Bible, how would you have wanted the people (the eye-witnesses) to
>have transmitted to others the information (the Truth) they encountered?

First, that is quite an assumption, and it quite handily supports
your position, and I for one have no reason to take it. I'm not going
to speak for the others who've posted on this thread, but I think
that this testimony is irrelevant. We cannot go back in time to make
sure that it is true or false. The best way to find out is through
god revealing himself to us, here and now, to everyone. I should
hope that god can figure out a way to convince us. After all, he's
supposed to be omniscient, right?

>Oh, I guess the effect something has had on my life cannot be
>submitted as evidence, correct?

Exactly! Because we have no way of verifying your personal experience,
now do we? I won't wimply take someone's word on a subject this
important, whether it's yours or some two thousand year old 'witness.'

>I believe the power that changed my life is evidence of the gospel,
>probably even more so than you believe your experiences point
>out the validity of your belief system.

How nice. Understand that this doesn't help us at all, okay?
Besides, my belief system as far as religion goes is null. When I
can avoid them, I assert no beliefs. I do so in the case of scientific
theories, for example, because it allows me to function. You
understand this, I think. What I won't do is start believing in
whatever for no reason. I obviously can get by nicely without the
xian belief system weighing me down. This is why you must prove it.

>In what ways is your system imcompatible?  Is it the great teachings
>of Jesus on how to live with God and man or what?  What is your
>world view?  Don't give me something about it being above my
>ability to comprehend, for some think we evangelicals are too
>slow or something.

No, it's the way that we tend to prove things instead of assuming.
I mean, if we didn't stop doing that sometime, we'd still look at
lightning and say 'god did it.' My system is incompatible because
there is no system beyond those basic theories science has established
(and which have repeatable evidence to back them up, unlike xianity)
which you seem to share. It's not like you believe one set of stuff
and I a completely different set. I won't presume, but it would seem
we share one set of beliefs (scientific ones mostly) and then you go
on and believe a bunch more stuff (xianity).

[bible quote deleted.]
By the way, general populace of t.r.m., I have heard that the whole
rant Paul made there, based on that temple to the 'unknown god,'
was baseless because they made that temple to whoever they missed,
and he mistook it (or perhaps tried to use it). Can someone verify
or disprove this?

>Have you every wonder where the Bible came from - why do we have it?
>Especially the Old Testament?  If a man had have created a system of
>believes and someone to worship, surely he would have made himself
>the object of that system.  The OT worships the Creator God and

Oh really. Who told you this, as you seem so omnisciently sure of
that premise. "surely he would have made himself..." indeed.
Think of the history of that book. Written by people who didn't
know nearly as much about the world as we do now, they might
decide to explain away all the unknowns with a god. Don't put it
past people to do that; after all, you have.

[belief system rant deleted]

>Arguments from design and from the world around us are part of the
>reasons we believe.  See Acts 17 above.  It is statistically amazing
>that we exist.  Even non-christians know or believe some things are
>constant (e.g. the laws of nature - physics.)  Some would argue we
>exist by virtue of how these laws work, yet, couldn't there be
>a force behind these laws?   Why are these things our only absolutes?

So you like arguments from design. They're still circular, and I'm
still going to reject them on that basis. So it is statistically
amazing that we exist (not that I know that, but for the sake of
argument). It's also amazing that 10 six-sided dice roll whatever
they do, to use someone else's idea. They still have to do something.
Some argue that the laws of nature enable us to exist at all.
We don't know that these people are right, since we have no set of
alternate universes to compare ours to. And even though that's
shot down as it is, I'll continue. Even if it turns out that without
the laws being the way they are we wouldn't exist, it *still*
doesn't mean anything. Yes, there might be a force behind these
laws. The fact that they're there doesn't prove anything.
In summation: so the universe is amazing (assuming it is). So what!

>I'd agree that God responds to those who call on him and they must
>believe he exists.

Don't you see what nonsense this is? I have to believe god exists
before he'll prove himself. Don't you understand that it makes no
sense to work that way? Scientists work by establishing a hypothesis
and testing it. What you propose is for me to assume the answer, not
prove it, and later get a proof (like that even matters--a later proof
is unnecessary, since you have to believe anyway) despite myself.

>Into what areas do your beliefs extent? (i.e., do your beliefs only
>pertain to the natural physical world, such as laws of physics
>try to model?  Or do they also define what can happen, does happen,
>or doesn't happen in the spiritual or emotional world?)

My beliefs by default extend as far as the physical world, no farther.
This includes people and their emotions and morals, but this
"spiritual" or "supernatural" stuff is just unnecessary. Also it
is hard to say anything about as there is no established perception
of the supernatural to correspond with the 5 senses used in the
natural world. Although ole Shirley rants on about a 'third eye'...

>The Bible is part of it, but the creation you and I live in is also
>part of it.  The fact that we even exist is part of it.

Okay, so do you acknowledge that it's circular, is the question.
Your 'proofs' seem to go like so (tell us if we're wrong, and more
importantly, tell us what they really are):

1) The bible is true because it says it is.
2) Creation is proof because it's just so darn neato.
3) Our existence is proof because we're so amazingly unprobable.

Now, is that basically it, or not? (Note that simply rewording it
is nothing significant.)

>>"It [childbirth] points to a Creator God and Jesus is understood to be
>>the Creator, God, Himself."
>>
>>"It is one and the same, if Jesus is God, the Creator, and that is
>>the way we know Him."

What you don't seem to connect from these quotes that I do see is
that first, you think childbirth suggests a creator, and *further*,
you think that it's a certain religion in particular. Where does
childbirth indicate, for instance, that it's the xian god, and not
just reincarnation, that's behind it all?

>Coming to God, the Father, is only through Jesus the Son.  If we
>don't believe in Him (his eternal nature from long before his
>incarnation, his physical life, death, resurrection, and ascension)
>we would have no hope.  For if there is no resurrection, we have

What does this mean, 'we have no hope'? Do you mean all non-xians
should feel utterly hopeless, or do you simply mean all non-xians
are just going to hell?
Your religion postulates that in order to be part of it, I must
believe. Nowhere does it say that it will provide some proof in
advance. In fact, you suggest that it isn't going to. Now, what
you have to realize is that *this makes no sense*. It is nonsense
to require proof always in the real world, and then when the subject
of god comes up, just throw that principle away and just blindly
believe. It would seem xianity is the definition of 'blind faith.'

>Part of the afterlife has to do with one's deeds, but part has to
>do with one's response to God's once and for all sacrifice for us,
>Jesus the Christ.  Only those who are righteous (justified) can
>be with God and man cannot merit this on his own, but only by
>Jesus death - only by Jesus' blood covering our deeds.

You speak of this sacrifice as if it were fact. Realize again (yeah,
I know it's a big order) that you haven't proven this to be fact yet,
and your circular reasoning (a la 'the bible says it's true, so it is')
is no proof. I can react to this so-called sacrifice only when I know
that that's actually what went down, not just some prophet getting
crucified.

>As you point out you own self, I believe, you aren't the one who can
>give all the reasons for why the Bible is supposedly riddled with
>problems, and neither am I completely able to give you all
>the logical reasons for faith in Christ.  Part of the work of
>God is our/my telling what I know - the big part is the Holy
>Spirit of God doing the work.  God gives the increase - not man.

Okay. One more time. It isn't our responsibility to prove you're
wrong. It is your responsibility to prove that you're right!
Do you understand?
As you are the one requiring that I adopt this unnecessary belief
system (it is unnecessary to me, see above for why) you have to
prove it, or I simply won't buy into it. There's no reason to
simply believe in it, since that makes no sense, so a burden of proof
is on you.

>Why do absolutes not exist in Spritual and moral matters, or do they?

Well, there's moral matters and then there are spiritual ones.
Moral matters pertain to the natural world (in other words, reality),
so something can be said about them, as in science. However, when
it comes to the supernatural (that is, not reality), there is no
reason to have any absolutes (or anything in particular, as I see it).

>Why can't there be some absolutes with respect to what is right
>in this area.  Or are you saying everything is right?  I doubt that.

See above. I can see why you would want me to establish some
absolutes in the matter, because then you could latch on to them.
But sorry, I just don't know when it comes to the supernatural.
Perhaps before you go asserting your supernatural beliefs you should
assert how it is you got them, as I've not heard a thing about humans
being able to perceive the supernatural. Think about that phrase.
Perceive the supernatural. If we can, maybe 'supernatural' needs
a new definition...

Martin Schulte
I could be patronizing and say "The Truth is the Truth even if you
choose to ignore it," but I won't.
Oops.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27665 alt.pagan:15908 alt.folklore.urban:34940