From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:32:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


|You screwed up again, Pitts.  In chronological order:
|
|1.  sieferman said that the bible contradicts the physical universe.
|2.  You state that the bible _doesn't_get_ specific on the physical 
|    universe, and you ask sieferman for specific instances.
|3.  sieferman provides specific instances.
|4.  You try to start a debate about whether or not miracles occur.
|
|YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED HIS POINT.  AGAIN.

/(rpitts)
/I think you are the one who wants to debate - note your capital letters.

What?

Capital letters don't indicate a desire to debate.  They indicate a desire
to force you to address the question that sieferman asked.  Which, true
to your evasive form, you have not done yet.  You ask people to believe
you, to trust in your god, and you won't answer questions about it. 
Why should anyone put any confidence in you when you won't answer questions?

Would you buy a car from a man who wouldn't tell you anything about the
car?  I don't think so.




/(rpitts)
/The question about the way the environment we live is is not
/said to normally have talking bushes, celestial orbit halts, etc.
/The Bible doesn't say these are the norm.  I did ask if he 
/presupposed that these could not happen?

You still haven't addressed his point.  Sieferman said that the bible
contradicts the physical universe.  Besides examples like halting
the sun & moon, there are other things related to age of the earth,
evolution, etc. where the bible contradicts the physical universe.

Again:  explain how the bible can be true when it contradicts the
physical universe.





|/(rpitts)
|/Are you a better example than these people?????
|/Why can't I use this example - it fits the situation.  
|
|Sorry.
|
|No it doesn't.  In the first place, according to your own religion,
|it is impossible for any man to "fully know" Christ.  That is supposed to
|be a lifelong journey, a spiritual walk and growing process.  


/(rpitts)
/It is a life long process.  

So you admit that it is impossible to fully know God, since every day
you are learning something new about God, correct?

If so, then explain your statement that the apostles "fully knew" Christ.




/(rpitts)
/However, there are examples (the parable
/of the sower) where the Bible speaks of people with different
/responses to the Word of God.  

So what?  

We are not talking about different responses.  We are talking
about your statement that the apostles did not leave because they fully
knew Christ.  Your statement is *all* we are talking about; nothing else.

TRUE OR FALSE:  You stated that the apostles did not leave Christ because
they fully knew him.  
TRUE, you did state that.

TRUE OR FALSE:  The apostles did in fact leave him.  
TRUE, they did leave Christ, at the crucifixion.

Therefore, your statement that it is impossible to leave Christ once
you fully know him is an incorrect statement.  The apostles are proof that 
this can happen.

Either that, or your original statement that they "fully knew" him is
an erroneous statement.  Which is it, Pitts?



/(rpitts)
/Some it doesn't stick with very
/well, because the Devil steals it.  Some produce a lot of fruit,
/because they persist in the Word they heards.  This progression
/is what I was referring to - once one persists and so holds to
/the Truth, I don't see how they can turn from it.

Again, you are wrong.  The scriptures state that while Christ was still
on earth, he gave his disciples power to do miracles in his name, to the
12 and also to the 70.  They came back and reported to Christ about the
miracles that they did, and Christ said (words to the effect), "Behold, 
I saw Satan falling as a lightning bolt from heaven."  Obviously, these
disciples were "producing fruit", as they were ministering and carrying
the gospel in Christ's name.  Yet, every last one of them left Christ
at the crucifixion.  

SO:  obviously your statement ("I don't see how they can turn from it")
is nonsense.  Here you have another example of disciples that were fully
engaged in Christ's ministry, and they also left.



/(rpitts)
/Even the example I gave, has the Apostles tellsing Jesus that He
/alone has the words of life and that there is no one else to turn to.

Then why did they leave him at the crucifixion if they truly believed
that, Pitts?  You still haven't answered this.



(me)
|In the second place, the example is flawed.  Even Peter denied Christ 
|three times (after the incident above which you mention).  But according 
|to *you*, he (and the other apostles) "fully knew Christ", and that's why
|they stayed with him while the other disciples left.  Obviously, they did not
|"fully know" Christ, since they could abandon and deny him at the 
|crucifixion.


/(rpitts)
/Yes, Peter did deny he knew Christ - in fact, Jesus had told Peter
/that he would be tested by Satan and that AFTER he was restored
/he would be of great help to the others - and he was.

You missed it again, Pitts.  If Peter "fully knew Christ" as you claim
he did, then it would have been impossible for him to fall away.  Yet, 
he did in fact deny Christ.  

So which explanation is it?

a.  Peter did *not* fully know Christ, and thus was susceptible to 
    falling away, or 
b.  Even people who fully know Christ and produce fruit can *still*
    fall away.

It has to be one or the other.



(me)
|Ergo, your example is a bad one, even by your own bible's standards.

/(rpitts)
/Ergo, what do you know about the Bible?  

Evidently a hell of a lot more than you do.




/(rpitts)
/The disciples all along
/were have said (even in the midst of miracles occurring) that they
/were amazed at who this man Jesus was.  They even did it again, after
/they supposedly realized or thought they knew who he was.  Often,
/it says that the disciples didn't understand (as written afterwards)
/what Jesus was referring to.  


So what? 

This may be what the scripture said. But this isn't what YOU said.  

What YOU said was this:

|/(Rpitts)
|/|>I have a hard time see how someone could fully-know Christ and
|/|>then turn away from him.  The apostles had this happen in there
|/|>presence - all of the other disciples left Jesus - and Jesus 
|/|>asked them if they wanted to leave, too.  They did not, for they
|/|>fully knew him.

So, is your personal theological explanation contradicted by the bible?
It would appear so.  

You seem to think that their point of understanding happened after the 
resurrection.  If that is true, then the above incident happened
(disciples leaving Christ in front of the apostles) *before* the 
resurrection.  Therefore, since the resurrection hadn't happened yet,
it was impossible for the apostles to fully know Christ yet.




(me)
|And, according to Hebrews 10, it is quite possible for someone to be a true
|believer and fall away.  You seem to believe that no true believer could
|fall away, becuase if they do, then that obviously proves they weren't a true 
|believer to begin with.  You are categorically wrong.  And this is the
|point that sieferman was desperately trying to get you to address, the
|point that you have been evading.

/(rpitts)
/I think the Bible points to the fact that people can turn away and this
/is what the warning in Hebrews 6 and 10 speaks to.


Then how do you explain your statement that people cannot fall away if
they are true believers?  

The bible clearly says that they can; do you know more than the bible does? 
Are you trying to re-write Hebrews 10?




/(rpitts)
/You seemed to have put me in a predefined box.

Your beliefs have put you in a box.  All I am doing is showing you how
tight the box is.  That is the fault of the box, not me.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24305 alt.pagan:14441