From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:39:07 GMT

In article <LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
>   Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
>   no longer believes that Jehovah exists.
>
>If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

But what if your view of Jehovah is wrong? What if the moslems have the
right version of Jehovah?

>   Trouble is that in accepting The Bible as "Jehovah's word", *you* had to
>   make the judgement that it *is* indeed Jehovah's word. You trusted human
>   reason (i.e. your own) at that point.
>
>This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
>respect to the bible and JW organization.  Everything made sense and was clear.
>There were no confusion involved. 

A few tabs of acid will really clear things up to :-)

>The fact that everythings around us had a
>creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even bigger things
>(e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

Why must a creator be better than what he creates? Can people not build
things bigger than themselves? Stronger? Faster? Able to add numbers
better? 
Soon when real AI arrives we will build something thats more intellegent
than ourselves. 

Lower things building better things works because in the begining you
only need extreme simplicity. In your case you argue that the universe
was created by God, yet you ignore the question of how God got there,
was God created by a creator greater than himself or did he arise from
nothingness?

>   To reject human reason thereafter ("If man disagrees with the bible, he
>   is wrong!") is inconsistent, since you have based your acceptance of The
>   Bible on your own human reason.
>
>Inconsistent? No!  Would it be inconsistent to trust the theoretical findings of
>physicists, engineers, chemists, etc., after their theories have been proved?

Would it be inconsistent to claim that newtons theories are perfectly true
even after relativity shows that they only apply approximately? Science 
is willing to constantly put its theories to the test, religion on the
otherhand ignores all evidence against its theories and ascerts that
they must be true no matter what the evidence is.

>   This applies equally well even if you were to claim direct experience of
>   God telling you that _The Bible_ is true, such as visions or whatever it
>   might be: *you* decide that these are genuine and not hallucinations.
>
>God does not intervene directly in mans affairs; he does so only through the bible!

So how did the miracles in the bible happen?


-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/