From: yohan@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Date: 20 Aug 1992 22:53:54 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: shadow.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Aug20.201052.21811@meaddata.com>, joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>I am convinced that people will believe what they want to believe so I
>could argue all I want until I'm blue in the face and people will
>still believe what they want. I respect that and hopefully, you'll
>respect my right to do the same. It's the first (and last) time I will
>ever be in this newsgroup but if the following is true from FAQ and I
>quote: "Many atheists would be happy to believe in the existence of a
>God; all that they ask is that he provide convincing direct evidence
>of his existence." then maybe it's worth it to put my 2-cents' piece
>in.
>
>It seems like a good number have had very unfortunate experiences with
>"organized religion" and so-called "Christians". I have too but I
>cannot use those as a basis for my belief in God since all humans are
>fallible and will always fail me at one time or another. Sad also, is
>the fact that too many people are masquerading as Christians when they
>really are not, based on the criteria that Jesus Christ himself, the
>center person in Christianity, has put forth. As a result, people like
>Mahatma Gandhi, for example, got turned off by "Christians" even
>though he said he liked Jesus Christ.
>
>I have to admit, I am not here to convince you all that there is a
>God. There will always be arguments in people's minds for and against
>it, it's what people choose to believe. I just ask that you consider
>the person of Jesus Christ, the most loved and most hated person who
>ever lived, all because He claimed to be God. There are 3 possibilities to His
>claim, 1) He was not telling the truth and He knew it which makes Him
>a liar; 2) He was not telling the truth and He did not know it which
>makes Him a lunatic; and 3) He was telling the truth. Other people
>more knowledgeable that I am can give dissertation-like arguments to
>the above but I just present mine simply: 1) If He was lying, then He
>chose to suffer and die for a lie, which makes Him really stupid and
>all His followers nuts; for a lie, Paul was beheaded, Peter was sawed
>in two, Stephen was stoned, etc. A study of these people's lives show
>quite a transformation after they had seen Jesus rise from the dead;
>2) A lunatic could not possibly give a message
>like the Sermon on the Mount and would be illogical in speech and
>thought; a study on Jesus` life could easily refute this; 3) He must
>be then telling the truth and all of us either reject or accept Him
>for what He claimed to be and the consequence of our choice. It is
>a moot point for me to argue about whether God exists or not; there
>are too many people who already believe God exists and yet has chosen
>to ignore the person of Jesus Christ. To those who are interested, I
>suggest studying the lives of your ex-contemporaries: Dr. Charles
>Joad, Josh McDowell, and C.S. Lewis. At least 2 of these people have
>started to write books that have sought to destroy the "myth of Christianity".
>

For one thing, you can essentially replace Jesus Christ with Mohammed in your
arguements and come to the conclusion that he was the prophet of god.  Since
Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive, this is one way to show your
arguements are flawed.

To arguement 1):  He could have been lying and got caught in his lie.  The rumor
that Jesus died willfully is hearsay from a biased source.  You also mention his
ability to inspire his followers to sacrifice.  Hitler and Stalin had their own
fanatics, but none use that to support their credibility.  Also, the "Son of God"
couldn't have been too all-inspiring, as it was one of his own followers who
betrayed him (but of course that was all part of a master plan).

To arguement 2):  You're sadly mistaken to say that lunatics can't give
intelligent or moving arguements.  Hitler and Neitchze did rather well (although
I think Neitchze lost his mind after his best work.)

To arguement 3):  You are far from covering all the possibilities, so Jesus being
the son of god is not the only conclusion.  It is so typical of Christians to
give up on thinking about something and attribute it to God.  For starters, there
are some who think Jesus was a Roman conspiracy used to bring peace to that
volatile part of the empire.

Don't try to use converted atheists as models for conversion or proof of
christianity's legitimacy.  For every one of them, there are christians who have
lost there faith.  BTW, I heard that C.S. Lewis was an agnostic before he died.
  

>To those who seem to blame God for every vile thing that happens in
>this world and asks why He does not fix it, I would just like to say
>that He will, He is just being patient because He is not willing that
>any should perish. He gave us free will, and we all have chosen to
>make a mess of our world by doing as we pleased yet we blame Him for
>it. I hope I don't sound like I`m preaching but whatever y'all choose
>to believe, mark God's Word on this that one day:  ".. EVERY knee shall bow and
>EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." See y'all there!
>


This is very interesting when you say that god will "fix" everything.  This
implies that god screwed up and does not seem to fit the definition of
perfection.  As for it being man's fault, this is like jailing the owner of a
killer pit bull.  Using your line of thinking, the owner is innocent even though
he trained (beat) his dog into a killing machine.


Anyway, I think I've given some honest thought to your arguements, and I'd enjoy
hearing some of your Ideas.  If you're like most christians, you'll blow them off
and say "we must have faith" or "we cannot question the will of god (because if
we did, we might figure out he doesn't exist.


Jon Newton - Agnostic
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic