From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:06:09 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology


In article <1992Oct6.052415.17526@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|Sigh...

Wow?

|In article <70009@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct3.072447.8844@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|>|In article <69739@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|[...]
|>|>No proof?  Well it is proof that you don't accept.  Jesus' followers
|>|>wrote and documented a lot of what Jesus did, so that we could beleive
|>|>and have eternal life.  
|>|
|>|Not exactly an unbiased source, is it?
|>
|>Who else is going to write about what Jesus did in those times, execpt
|>the ones that were with him.  
|
|Any number of the numerous bystanders that were around when "Jesus"
|presumably performed his feats.

How many bystanders do you know rush home and write about what they
just saw?  Not many - people close to a movment write about it, along
with those who are opposed to it, in general.

|>|Strange how all the "documentation" for what "Jesus" did was written by
|>|the very people who believed him to be The Savior.
|>
|>Again, who else at that time would have written it?  There are others
|>who comment on what he did.  Josephus tells of a righteous man who
|>was the Christ that was crucified and that people were following him,
|>for they said he rose from the dead.
|
|Right.  No evidence that he *did* rise from the dead, only that his
|followers *believed* him to have risen from the dead.

This is from the pen of Josephus.  Why would he report it at all?  There
is evidence from those who were with Jesus.

|This particular reference is one of the reasons for believing that there
|existed someone who went around preaching the things attributed to Jesus
|in the Bible.  But you can't say anything further than that.

Agreed.

|>|Yeah, so?  Without any significant third-party sources for stuff like
|>|this, and given that the very people who made this claim were the very
|>|people who had the most to lose (psychologically) by being wrong about
|>|this, I have little reason to believe that this "Jesus" actually was
|>|"resurrected".
|>
|>These men say Jesus - they say the nail scares in his hands - they
|>say the hole in his side.  Is it that they were too bold in their
|>proclamation of Jesus' resurrection????  Would you not have been?
|
|If I were a believer, I would have written what I believed.  The nail
|scars are simply what one would think would be there were one to believe
|that someone who had been crucified had risen from the dead.  You don't
|need to *see* it to come up with it.

I don't follow your point here.  Correct the nail scars are what one
would expect and just what one would expect.  If that is what they
saw, what should they have written????????????????

|>|I do not question that the authors of the various passages that mention
|>|this believed in this "resurrection".  I question that the authors'
|>|claims match reality.
|>
|>How so?
|
|I question that there existed anyone who had the capability to cure
|blindness, to walk on water, or any of the "miracles" attributed to
|this "Jesus".  But I do not question that the authors of the Bible
|believed the man they worshipped to be capable of these things.

Understood.

|Belief in someone's capabilities and the actual existence of those
|capabilities are two different things.

Understood.  However, if Jesus was God (the Creator of the Universe)
in human flesh, don't you think he could have done these things?  

|>|>I guess your have better sources that contradict all of this.
|>|
|>|No contradictions are needed.
|>
|>Have you assumed that a Jesus could not have risen from the dead and
|>so that is why these letters of the Bible are not good enough?  
|
|In effect, yes.  I have very good reason to believe that nobody from that
|time rose from the dead, walked on water, healed blindness, etc.

Could you please state your reasons?

|It will take a great deal of positive evidence in support of these things
|to make me even consider the possibility that these things happened.

True - that is why we have much written evidence about what happened.
Again, if it happened just the way they say, what else should they have
done?  What about their claim that they saw Jesus ascended into the
heavens - is that a common activity of the time and so they threw it in 
or is it another testimony of the person of God in human flesh?

|Like I said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  What
|little evidence you and others have presented is anything but extra-
|ordinary.

What do you want?  We have the documentation of what happened.  Jesus
finished his work for man's salvation - he is returning again.

|>Again, others mention the events.
|
|"Others".  What others?  You mentioned Josephus, but he apparently only makes
|a passing reference.
|
|What other references do you have that are not contained within the Bible?

Some have been presented on the net and I presented some from a book
summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book _Why I Believe_ and here they are:

[8] Why I believe in Christ

Dr. Kennedy states that the evidence for Christ is 
overwhelming.  For those who honest seek the truth there is 
abundant evidence.

Some say Jesus never really existed - he was a myth.  
Consider this - Historian J. Gilchrist Lawson says: "The 
legendary, or mythical, theory of Christ's existence is not 
held by any one worthy of the name scholar.  The evidences 
of Christ existence are more than for any other event in 
ancient history."  One reason we know this is that the Bible 
tells us, but more than that we have support from the 
following secular historians and writers of antiquity: 
Tacitus, the Roman historian; Suetonius; Pliny the younger; 
Epictetus; Lucian; Aristides; Galenus; Lampridius; 
DioCassius; Hinnerius; Libanius; Ammianus; Marcellinus; 
Eunapius; Zosimus.  Lucian,Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and 
Julian the Apostate have written whole books against 
Christianity.  Pontius Pilate wrote of his activities with 
Jesus - "he described Christ's miracles - he tells of Herod 
delivering Jesus over to him and the crowd making a great 
uproar to have Christ tried and so he [Pilate] ordered him 
crucified, but first had him scourged, although he found 
nothing against him.  Much less he records that that day the 
sun went dark and the moon turned as if to blood." [The 
Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 8]  

Another writer, Thallus, wrote about the sun failure to give 
light.  A Syrian writer, Mara bar-Serapion, in about A.D. 
73, wrote to his son warning not to do evil like killing 
godly men and he also "What advantage did the Jews gain from 
executing their wise King?..."  Julian the Apostate's book 
aimed at destroying Christianity confirms that Jesus was 
born in the reign of Augustus at the taxing time of 
Chrenius.  He even affirms the authenticity of the four 
gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.)  

|>|Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Since none is
|>|forthcoming (I cannot consider a biased source such as the Bible to
|>|be "evidence"), what good reason is there to believe the claims?
|>|None that I can see.
|>
|>The Bible was written by several different men not by one man.  
|
|This is irrelevent.  All of the authors were strong believers in the
|particular brand of religion contained within the Bible.

But the prophesies in the Old Testament were written hundreds of years
before and translated into Greek in 150BC.  They were written by
different men, who look forward to the coming of Christ.  The NT
is written by men who say the fulfillment of the OT prophesies.
These men wrote over hundreds of years, but have the one theme of
Jesus the Christ coming, life and return to rule the world.

|>The recorded events from multiple sources should give you some hint that
|>these writings have some weight.  
|
|No.  This is true only if the authors had no contact with each other.  As
|far as I know, that is not the case.

The men wrote from different perspectives.  They were very close to the
activities and gave an account of what happened.

The OT authors had little contact with each other and yet they continually
proclaimed the coming of a great prophet, a savior, Jesus the Son of God.

|>That is unless you have assumed before hand that miracles cannot happen.
|
|It will take a great deal of evidence to convince me that miracles did
|happen.
|
|Until then, I will make as few positive assumptions as possible, and will
|thus not assume that miracles can happen.

Why?  Is your assumption the resistance to Jesus being able to perform
miracles the end in itself?  Do you not want the miracles to have happened
and so assumed them away????????

|>|In other words, "Jesus" made a *stronger* claim than the claim of being
|>|godlike.  This means that *stronger* evidence is necessary.
|>
|>It is.  He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.  He did not
|>die again.  He is alive today.
|
|No.  The authors of the Bible *claim* that he rose from the dead and
|ascended into heaven.

I'm not sure what the 'No' is in reference to, for I agree with the
rest of the paragraph.

|Do not confuse the claims that a few people have made with actual events.
|They are two different things.

What do you mean here??  They are two different events, if you assume
that the event could not have happened and so say that the claims are
separate from the actual events.  Again, what if the event happened 
as written, how do your assumptions allow for that?

|>|No.  What the believers *wrote* is what has been passed down.  That
|>|the things they describe "Jesus" as having done actually happened is
|>|another matter entirely, and one for which there is little, if any,
|>|supporting evidence.
|>
|>Only if you know the writings of the Bible to be false or assume them to
|>be false.
|
|Do you know what circular arguments are?  It would seem not.

Do you know?  It seems you assume that miracles could not and can
not happen and so any evidence of them happening is not correct.

|Don't you understand that the claims within the Bible are *precisely*
|what I am questioning here?
|
|You cannot use the Bible to justify the claims within the Bible!!!

Are you questioning these multiple books because the are bound in one 
volume and we refer to them?  Or are you questioning a specific
claim within one of the books?

|>|Big deal.  I don't care who is "blessed" and who is not.  That your
|>|"God" requires its followers to believe without decent evidence is
|>|good reason for me to believe that your "God" is not worth following,
|>|even if it *does* exist.
|>
|>The evidence is there.  
|
|Then why is it that many professional historians, who make their living
|studying such things, are unconvinced?  They would know better than

Name a few and also consider those who are convinced because of their study.

|anyone else what the evidence for and against the claims in the Bible
|is, and yet many of them (if not most) remain unconvinced on historical
|grounds.


Again from my summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe"

[1]Why I Believe the Bible:
The Bible gives many predictive prophecies.  It tells us of 
a coming Prophet into whom's mouth God will put his words.  
It tells not to fear anyone who gives a prophesy that is 
false.  The Bible even quotes God as saying that there is 
none like God, himself, declaring the end from the 
beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not 
yet done.

Dr. Kennedy says that Budda, Confucius, and Lao-tse's 
writings DO NOT contain predictive prophesy.  The Koran has 
one prophesy by Muhammed that says he will return to Mecca.  
However, the Bible contains prophesies that are 
substantially in a league of there own - it predicts the 
death and return from that death for Jesus the Christ.

Today's 'prophets' (e.g., Jeane Dixon) don't do very well in 
their prophecies.  [They help sell the tabloids, but do fail 
miserably in their fulfillment.]  Dr. Kennedy says "Perhaps 
God wanted to show people how incapable they are of 
predicting the future."

The Old Testament contains some 2,000 predictive prophecies 
- not a few lucky guesses.  These prophecies are detailed.  
They often predict things that were not likely to come to 
pass - the very opposite of human expectations.  In many 
cases the writer had already died and even the writings had 
been translated into Greek before some of the prophecies 
came to fulfillment.

Examples: The cities of Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on 
the Mediterranean Sea.  Exekiel prophesied that Tyre would 
be destroyed and never be rebuilt nor inhabited.  Sidon was 
to be brought down, but continue to be inhabited.  Sidon was 
attacked and many killed, but still exists to this day.

Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the 
prophecy.  It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have 
its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no 
more.  Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for 
thirteen years and took it.  Many former inhabitants fled 
for an island and made a new city of Tyre.  Two hundred and 
fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander 
the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them 
into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to 
take it.  He did - the old city was stripped.  Today the old 
Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to 
dry.

The two cities of Samaria and Jerusalem were spoke about and 
Jerusalem was to be attacked, destroyed, have its people 
carried away captive, and have its walls destroyed, but then 
it was to have its walls rebuilt.  Samaria's walls were to 
be cast down and made like a vineyard.  History testifies to 
this.

Another eight or so examples (Edom, Babylon, etc.) are given 
in support of the accuracy of he Bible.

[2] The Stones Cry Out
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if 
these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately 
cry out.  Luke 19:40.

As the higher critical school of thought arose in the 
eighteenth century began heaping doubt upon the Bible's 
authenticity, the field of archaeology (the witness of the 
stones) arose in the nineteenth century.  The question of 
what will archaeology say about the worthiness of the Bible 
too arose.

As the details of a story are brought out and defined, so 
the truth of the story is also confirmed or denied.  Many 
have striven to do this very thing.

Julius Wellhausen (German scholar, 1889) subjected the 
fourteenth chapter of Genesis to tough evaluation.  This 
chapter relates how four Babylonia kings captured five kings 
around the Dead Sea and how Abram and his servants went 
after them, since his nephew Lot was also captured.  They 
routed the enemy near Damascus - a rather long way off.  
Wellhausen said that this was near a near impossibility for 
that time and others did agree with him.  In 1890 
excavations in Egypt, Dr. Petrie found information (Semitic 
writings) that gave the names of these four Babylonian kings 
- one of which was Hammurabi.  These writings tell how 
Hammurabi and three other kings did the above, along with 
the findings of the associated camp sites.

The Hittites were another favorite muse of the critics, for 
surely they did not exist, as they were mentioned only in 
the Bible and only in eight different chapters.  Dr. Hugo 
Winckler has now discovered forty Hittite cities.  The 
kingdom was so large that Egypt and Babylonia were like 
tribes to the Hittites. [R.A. Torrey]

The Pharaohs of Egypt were said to have made the Hebrew 
people build with bricks made with straw and 'mortar' and 
then with bricks without straw.  Sir Flinders Petrie 
discovered the sites of Pithom and Raamses - they were built 
with mortar - found here, but no where else in Eygpt - much 
less the lower bricks were made with straw and the tops ones 
were made without straw.

Dr. Kennedy continues on with examples about Moses 
authorship, the fall of the city of Jericho.  The Flood is 
attested to in almost every civilization.  Findings in 
Babylonia and Acadia gave the basically the same account as 
the Biblical account.  Another Babylonian tablet mentions 
reading the writings of those who lived before the flood.  
While another tablet parallels the ten generations before 
the Biblical account of the Flood to that of ten kings of 
their history and the words "The Deluge came up ..."  Miller 
Burrows of Yale states that "the archaeologist spade has 
refuted the views of he modern critics.  The critics 
excessive skepticism come not from careful evaluation of the 
data but from the great predisposition against the 
supernatural." (paraphrased.}  Nelson Glueck, the renowned 
Jewish archaeologist, said, "It may be stated that no 
archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical 
reference."

The stones cry out.

|So: what evidence are you referring to?  Since the claims in the Bible are
|being contested, you cannot use the Bible to substantiate them.

True - see above.

|>|>I ask, if this is really the way it happened (which I believe), then
|>|>what more could be done to document it???????????
|>|
|>|A *lot*.  In particular, independent accounts from disinterested third
|>|parties would help greatly.  But such accounts seem not to exist with
|>|respect to any of the important claims made by the authors of the Bible.
|>
|>Which specific events would you like to see documented?  Is Josephus'
|>account invalid?
|
|No.  But Josephus' account does not support the claims that I question.

It gives rise to the fact that there was a historical person from the
first century from a third party, I believe. 

|I would like to see the following events documented, from multiple, timely
|sources that are independent of the Bible:
|
|	- Jesus walking on water
|	- Jesus curing the blind
|	- Jesus creating food from nothing
|	- Jesus turning water into wine
|	- Jesus rising from the dead

Again, the events recorded in the Bible are not by one human, but many.
If they were separate books laying around would you accept them?

|>True I don't have direct experience of an afterlife, but the people
|>that saw the death of Jesus and his appearances after his resurrection
|>and his ascension wrote us to encourage us that we could know (that we 
|>could have faith.)
|
|You DO NOT KNOW that these things happened.  At best, all you know is that
|the authors of the Bible *believed* they saw these things.

And if they did happen?  I guess they would have wrote differently???
Maybe even taken a picture or something, I guess.

|You *believe* that these things happened, i.e. you have faith that these
|things happened, but that is NOT THE SAME as knowledge.

In a sense, I agree and understand what you are saying, but in a sense
I know this as well (head knowledge wise) than any other historical
set of events.  Much less, I have the witness of the Holy Spirit teaching
me and opening my eyes (spiritually and mentally) to what Jesus was
teaching.  My life is changed because of it.

|>|The "sense" of knowing that I'm talking about is closer to the type
|>|associated with your real-world experiences.  It is *not* faith.
|>
|>Jesus came back from the dead and never died again.  He told us of
|>the life to come.
|
|Is this from your own real-world experiences, or is this from your belief
|system?  It looks to me that it is from your belief system.  After all,
|*you* weren't there to see these things happen, were you?  *You* weren't
|there to listen to what Jesus *actually* had to say, were you?

You weren't there to say it didn't happen.  We have the documentation
and you have doubt.  Anyone can doubt, but that doesn't disprove it. 

|Like I said, the "sense" of knowing that I'm talking about is the type
|associated with real-world experience, *not* faith.  Your statements
|above are statements of faith, not statements of experience.

The fact that my life has been changed and that I understand more 
and more of what Jesus taught and have applied it to my life IS experience.

|Why do you have so much trouble seeing the difference?

Maybe you merge the two in your mind and it is not me.  Maybe I am
so convienced that my faith has become experience, too.

|>|>For the sake of the argument, what if we are wrong - what have we lost?
|>|
|>|The ability to do things that you are currently forbidden by your
|>|belief system to do.  You can't, for example, have sex until you
|>|are married.
|>
|>Oh, I see.  Premarital sex is the great missing element in Christianity.
|
|Only one of the many.  Another example: submission of the wife to her
|husband's will.

You can't have two heads of a unit.  The Bible teaches that as Christ
is the head of the church so is the husband the head of the wife.  He
gives himself for her, he nutures and cares for her as for himself, he
is to help her, etc.

|Another example (and this is an assumption on my part.  There are some
|Christians who do not believe this):  homosexual expression.

Oh.  I think this falls under the heading of sex.

|>Do you think sex is the thing that keeps people together?  
|
|It is one of the things that keeps couples together.  Indeed, it is
|important enough that couples have split up because of different
|sexual needs (e.g., frequency, time of occurrance, etc.).

Or is the frequency a result of some other lack in their relationship?
Could it be a lack of true love for each other, instead of loving
for one's own self?  Could it be a lack of caring and communication
and so they draw apart?  Sex (the mechanical act) is more for the
man than the woman.  Women need more than sex.

|>Do you think it totally fulfills your life?
|
|No, but it does to a degree.
|
|>|>For we are living fulfilled lives today.  However, if we are right,
|>|>what have you lost??????
|>|
|>|The ability to fulfill your life even more than it already is.
|>
|>In what way?
|
|See above.

Would you like to be fulfilled emotionally and spiritually?

|You needn't answer this, but what did you do before you were married to
|fulfill your sexual drive?

I didn't run around looking for sex - it wasn't easy and I don't claim
perfection - I had intercourse the first time on my wedding night.

|Nothing?  I rest my case.

I do not claim perfection - no one is perfect.  However, I don't
hold up any of my short coming (mentally or physcially, internal
or external actions) as a model to say _this is the way fall me_.  
I conform myself into what God wants, through the renewing of my mind.  
I submit to Him and if I do fail, I confess it - he is faithful
and just to forgive.

|>|>Every one can know - it is a manner of faith and not works.  
|>|
|>|Faith and knowledge are *not* the same thing!!
|>
|>Clarification:  Every one can know if they have eternal life.  
|
|No, they can't.  They can *believe* they have eternal life.  They can
|*believe* that they have a handle on the requirements for having eternal
|life.

The Apostle John (a man who walked and talked with Jesus) wrote us and
and told us that he wrote that he did so that WE MAY KNOW that we
have eternal life, if we are a believer (1 John 5:13)

|But they cannot *know* that they have eternal life, in the sense of
|experience.

Understood.

Knowledge and witness of experience is a way of know - you don't
have to experience everything.  We don't have see the power station
working to use the electricity, do we?

|>Eternal life comes by faith and not by man's works.  It is a gift of God.
|
|I rest my case!

Oh.

|>|You "lose eternity" only if you're *right*.
|>|
|>|I'm questioning whether or not you're right.  There is little, if any,
|>|evidence that says that you *are* right, and a significant amount of
|>|evidence that says that you're not.
|>
|>Give the evidence that says Christianity is not right.
|
|Well, I'll give what evidence I can that your particular beliefs are
|incorrect.
|
|The strongest evidence is that your beliefs seem to be internally
|inconsistent.  If what I understand of your beliefs is correct, you
|believe that your God has the following characteristics:
|
|	- all-knowing
|	- all-powerful (capable of anything)
|	- created everything.
|	- all-loving (loves all of his creations)
|
|The first three, when combined, yield the conclusion that everything is
|exactly the way God wants it to be.
|
|It is a fact that humans suffer from natural disasters, and that this
|suffering is unconnected with any moral choices they have made (I don't
|call the choice of where to live a moral choice).  Since these disasters
|happen because God *wants* them to happen, it follows that humans suffer
|because God *wants* them to suffer.  This is in direct contradiction with
|your fourth premise.

Have you ever thought that God didn't want the above to happen, but
because man sinned (he disobeyed God) it did happen.

|All this is explained in greater detail a few pages below.
|
|>|>|Let me get this straight:  you are not well read (by your own admission),
|>|>|and you claim to know very little, yet you somehow decide to believe in
|>|>|all this unnecessary and untested gobbledygook *anyway*?  Whatever for???
|>|>
|>|>For eternal life.  
|>|
|>|Except that *this* reason is valid to you only *after* you believe.
|>|Can't you justify your belief without resorting to circular arguments?
|>
|>For I know I am not perfect.  
|
|Irrelevent.
|
|>I know I do wrong.  
|
|Irrelevent *and* subjective.  "Wrong" requires a standard of reference.

You have the standard, obviously, for you can tell me that my comments
are irrelement - where did you get your standard??

We all have a standard in our heart - you know it is wrong to kill, don't you?

|>Jesus came from God
|>to tell us that we can related to the one that made us, even though
|>we are not able to attain perfection, which is what God requires.  
|
|Here's an example of what I was talking about previously.  You say that
|God "requires" perfection.  Well, God *chooses* what it requires.  If
|God requires perfection from humans, that is because God *wants* to.

I think I can say Correct.

|Now, since (by your belief system) humans and the universe they live in
|have been created by your God, and since you believe your God to have
|known what it was doing, it follows that any imperfections that are
|found in humans are because of how God created humans and the universe.
|In short, it's *God's* fault.

God had to provide for freedom of choice, else man would be a robot.
Man disobeyed - God had told him not to do so.

|Only an insane God would deliberately create something that *fails* to meet
|its requirements.

Again, you assume man has no resposiblity.  After creation, God saw
everything he had created and said it was good.  How can you know
that God created something that was faulty?  It had a free will and
chose to do wrong.

|>Though Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, we are able to relate to
|>the Father.  
|
|It is not necessary that this "relationship" be so indirect.  If it *is*
|this indirect, it is only because your God *wants* it that way.

Correct and he provided the way for it to happen.

|Thus, one may easily conclude that this "relationship" isn't particularly
|important to your God.

How so???????????
He gave his only son for the world so that no one should perish - he
doesn't want any to perish, but all to come to repentance - you can come, too.

|>The Father sees us through the gift of his Son's merits
|>and not on our own merits.  
|
|Gee, whose fault is that?  God's, of course.  God *could* have set things
|up better.  God *didn't* (according to you).

How so?

|>Jesus died and rose from the dead.  
|
|So you believe.  I am not at all convinced.

Understood.

|>He gained the victory over the grave, for he did not remain dead 
|
|His *body* remained dead, did it not?

Does a dead body eat?  Does a dead body teach?  It was a immortal body
and not a flesh and blood body, for he had shed his blood.  He rose
in a physical body.

|>nor did he die again.  
|
|Only because he didn't get another body.  Duh.

Duh, I don't follow you here.

|>He is with the Father.  
|
|So you believe.

So I do.

|>We have this witnessed to us
|>by Jesus' follower and by the Holy Spirit functioning in the world today.
|
|Yeah, right.
|
|You're going to believe some third, fourth, fifth, etc., -person account
|regarding something like this?

First hand.

|Look, none of these people who made these claims were even *there*.  They
|didn't see God, and thus they didn't see this "Jesus" with God.  So how
|do *they* know where "Jesus" is??

How about Peter and John?  How about Paul being called by the Lord via
the bright light vision and at the same time the man Ananias(?) was told
that Paul would be coming and to go and meet him.  For Paul would be
the Lord's messenger to the Gentiles.

|How gullible you seem to be...

Really.

|>|>Again, for the sake of the argument, what do I lose, since I live to my 
|>|>understanding a fulfilled life?  What do you risk losing?
|>|
|>|The opportunity to do anything that, were it not for your belief
|>|system, you would be inclined to do for the benefit it brings you
|>|and others.  Sex before marriage is one such thing.
|>
|>Again I forgot about sex being everything. :-)
|
|Well, most people seem to attach a fair degree of importance to it.  :-)

Too much, too much importance is attached to it.

|>Have you ever thought that his inclination to do anything for 'the benefit'
|>of others maybe is not really for the others benefit, but for someone's
|>own personal pleasure, regardless of the others real needs.  
|
|Like I said: "for the benefit it brings you and others".
|
|I'm not talking about rape here.  I'm talking about sex between two
|consenting adults.  In such a situation, it's very hard to argue that
|only one of the people is deriving any benefit from the act.  I would
|call pleasure a benefit.

It is not very hard to know that a woman needs more than the 'consentual sex'
act.

|>Intercourse 
|>is not the thing a woman needs - they need affection all day long not
|>just the sex act.  
|
|Note that you say not *just* the sex act.  I agree that sex isn't the
|*only* thing women want and enjoy, just as it's not the only thing
|men want and enjoy.
|
|But you cannot deny that it is *one* of the things that most members of
|both sexes want and enjoy.

Agreed.

|>Sex is the culmination of many events.  
|
|Yeah.  So?
|
|>|I cannot believe myself to have merit over something/someone whose
|>|current existence I do not even know, except in hypothetical terms.
|>
|>I don't quite follow this.
|
|I can, only in hypothetical terms, believe myself to have greater merit
|than something I have no belief in.  But only in hypothetical terms.  Not
|in real-world terms.
|
|For me to believe that I have merit over something else in real-world terms,
|I must believe that something else to exist.  Such is not the case with
|respect to this "Christ" of yours.
|
|Whether or not I have more merit than the travelling preacher who spoke
|so long ago, and who is currently thought of as "Jesus" by you, I cannot
|say.  I don't have enough data.
|
|I *do* have enough data to say that, hypothetically, I have more merit
|than your God.  *I've* never killed anyone, for one thing.  I've never
|told someone to kill someone else, either.  But your God has done both.

Maybe physcial death is not the real issue - have you ever considered that?

|>|>You do believe there was a historical Jesus, correct?
|>|
|>|I cannot say for sure.  I understand that there is good historical
|>|reason to believe that *someone* during the period in question
|>|travelled around preaching some of the things attributed to Jesus
|>|of the Bible, and that this person eventually became known, in a
|>|fashion, as the Jesus portrayed in the Bible.
|>
|>How long do you think it took for this man to become know in the fashion
|>he is know in the Bible?
|
|Looks like it took 50 years or more, from what I've seen knowledgeable
|people saying here on the net.

Oh - they were there to disprove the writings of Peter and John, men who
walked with and talked with Jesus.

|>|Yawn.  This does nothing to address my point.  If you believe your "God"
|>|to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, *and* you believe your
|>|"God" to have set up the initial conditions of the universe, then your
|>|belief is internally inconsistent, because the logical conclusions that
|>|can be drawn from each assumption contradict one another.
|>
|>I don't quite follow this.
|
|Okay.  I'll spell it out for you.
|
|(1) You believe your God to be all-powerful, i.e. capable of doing anything.
|I will assume that your God cannot break definitions, and thus cannot do
|something like creating a rock too heavy for him to lift, but this is the
|only restriction I will place on what God can do (if God can break
|definitions, then God trivially gets whatever it wants, *always*).
|
|(2) You also believe your God to be all-knowing.
|
|(3) You also believe your God to have created everything.
|
|The above three, when combined, yield the consequence that your God
|created everything *exactly* the way it wanted it.  That is, everything

Created, correct.

|had exactly the attributes God wanted, no more and no less.  Being all-

Incorrect, for man chose to sin - God didn't want that.

|powerful means that God was incapable of making a mistake in implementation,
|and being all-knowing means that God was incapable of making a mistake
|in planning.

Let him know when you see him.  I guess man is above this.

|So: mankind had exactly the traits God wanted.  Satan had exactly the traits
|God wanted.  The universe had exactly the traits God wanted.  Thus, any
|interaction between these elements is something that God not only knew
|about, but wanted to happen.  The same is true of the results of any such
|interaction.
|
|Now, one of the properties of mankind that God intentionally implemented
|was that mankind had a nonzero probability of doing something God had told
|him not to do.  God also created the universe with the statistical property
|that, given enough time, anything that has a nonzero probability of happening
|*will* happen.  Thus, God intentionally created a situation in which it was
|guaranteed that his creation, mankind, would disobey his commands.

And how did you arrive at this?  Oh, maybe you forget where it is written
that Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  Have
you missed that?  So has God not provided for everything before it even
began - he did foresee what would happen you know?

|Thus, the story of Adam and Eve, if true, happened exactly the way God
|wanted it to happen.

It happened and God knew it would happen, but it was not his desire.

|Furthermore, the consequences of that disobedience were *also* defined by
|God, and by axioms 1 and 2, were exactly what God wanted them to be.  Thus,
|if the Adam and Eve story is true, mankind has a limited lifespan because
|God *wanted* mankind to have a limited lifespan, and the same is true of
|all the other consequences of "the fall".

True.

|Now, back to the universe for a moment.  Like everything else, it was
|created exactly to God's specifications by God.  Unfortunately, these
|specifications are such that physical, emotional, and intellectual harm
|is sometimes done to the humans that dwell within, with no connection
|at all with any of the moral choices these humans have made (choices such
|as where to live).  Some of this harm comes to small children and other

It was connected to the first man - who brought sin into the human race.
At the beginning, man and all the animals were vegitarian and only after
the fall of man did the ground (the earth) not cooperate with man working it
like he did in the garden.  After the flood, animals began to fear man
and so each other, for they (the animals) were given to man to eat.

|such people that we normally regard as being totally innocent.  All this
|is the direct result of the way the universe was designed and the way
|humans are built (which is the direct result of how humans were originally
|designed and, presumably, the consequences [which were chosen by God]
|that humans have suffered as a result of their disobedience [which God
|explicitly designed them to do]).

It is a judgment on mankind for we all come from Adam, who sinned and
brought the judgment of God on the earth.

|>|To say otherwise is to make a mockery of the concept we know as "love".
|>
|>What do you understand love to be?
|
|Love, to me, involves caring about another being enough that you will
|go out of your way to insure their well-being and happiness.  How much
|you love them will determine how much you're willing to go out of your
|way.  "Going out of your way" implies that the action in question will
|cost you something, be it time, money, resources, risk, or whatever.

Good - what if the person doesn't want your help or is hostile towards
you - would you love still help and still give?  God's love would and
did and does.  He gave his only Son for us while we were yet sinners,
while we were all turned away from God.  Only through what Jesus did
can we even attempt to related to God.

|Now, since your God is supposed to be all-powerful, this means that the
|cost to your God of any particular action is zero.  This means that God
|need only love someone a little to do whatever it takes to insure the
|well-being and happiness of that someone.
|
|Since events occur in the universe that cause harm to the people that your
|God presumably "loves", and since some of this harm has no connection with
|any of the moral choices these people make, one must then conclude that
|either (a) your belief that God "loves" these people is false, or (b) your
|belief that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and created everything is
|false.  *One* of these *must* be false, for the logical consequences of
|each contradict each other.

Again, your points assume that the physical world is all that exist,
but the spiritual world exist and is the big factor in what is right and
wrong.

|Since your belief system is internally inconsistent, it logically follows
|that your belief system, taken as a whole, is false.

Oh.  Only if you don't listen to the one who gave the system and
so decide you know what God's will for us is.  His will is for us
to come to him and be conformed into the likeness of his Son, Jesus the
Christ - the fullness of God dwelling in bodily form - the exact representation
of God.

|Of course, if you change any of the premises, the conclusions also change,
|and the system as a whole will have to be re-evaluated.

What if you have misunderstood the premises?

|>|You attribute the changes in your life to this "Jesus" character, and
|>|you subscribe to a large and complex belief system as a result of this.
|>|But whether or not this has anything to do with reality is another
|>|question entirely.
|>
|>Is my belief system large and complex because it is written down or
|>because it affects every area of my life?  
|
|Neither.  Your belief system is large and complex because it involves
|a large set of arbitrary rules which cannot be deduced from any first
|principles.
|
|Not that yours is the largest and most complex, however...

The whole 'law' is summed un in 'love your neighbor as yourself' and
the attitude toward God is to 'love God with all of your heart, soul,
and mind.'

|>You have hit on a pretty
|>good point.  The one to whom one submits or to whom one attributes
|>the good one might have received or done is very important (i.e., either
|>man is the highest level or God is?)
|
|What is this "highest level" stuff?  Must such a thing be measured using
|a scalar metric?

Do you believe man is the supreme being of the universe?  I'm not
asking about life on other planets, but the relative difference
between mankind and God.

|>|Since there seems to be so little objective evidence supporting your
|>|belief system, I have no good reason to believe that your belief system
|>
|>Again, give some objective evidence denying the belief system.
|
|See above.
|
|Additionally, consider the fact (as presented by others far more
|knowledgeable than I in this) that a number of the "prophecies" in
|your reference, the Bible, were shown erroneous.

Which ones?  I'll respond, if I can - I don't know everything nor
do these other guyes on the net.  Their assertions should cary
no more weight than mine nor the Bible itself.

There is a lot of traffic and I can't answer everything, but if
you want I can try.  For example their proof of the Tyre prophecy
being false is a misunderstanding of the prophesy to start with.

|Further, consider the fact that evolution, as a process, has been
|shown to be an excellent explanation for the existence of life on
|earth.  I do not know whether or not you agree with evolution, but
|if you do not, then that is one more strike against your particular
|belief system (but not against Christianity as a whole, difficult as
|that may be to define).

It is a strike at Christianity, for Jesus is said to be the Creator
of all that is seen and unseen - they were all created by Him and for
Him (Col 1:17.)

|>|has much connection with reality (it certainly has no connection with
|>|the reality *I* have experienced).  Thus, I have no good reason to
|>|believe in this "God" of yours, or that this "Jesus" is my "savior",
|>|or any of the other things you believe in that sound like so much
|>|bogosity to me.
|>
|>Do you personally know any Christians?  
|
|Yes.
|
|>Do you interact with any on a regular basis?   
|
|I have in the past, yes.  I do not currently, however.
|
|>I'm not referring to someone that just goes to church
|>on Sunday or Christmas and Easter.  I'm referring to someone that
|>is actively seeking to become more like Jesus - living their life for
|>God and not themselves.
|
|Yes, I know what you're talking about.  My sister is one such person.

What do you think about her relationship to God?

|>|>What do you call 'much of a problem'?
|>|
|>|Oh, things like being unable to deal with the death of loved ones, or the
|>|experience of severe personal danger.  These things are things I have
|>|weathered without the help of any supernatural entity.
|>
|>Did you greive?  (Is this what 'weathered' means?)  
|
|I felt a loss, but it was more because I would not be able to interact
|with them for the rest of my physical life than for any other reason.
|
|"Weathered" means that I lived through it without significant harm to
|myself.
|
|>Christians have the hope of seeing our loved ones again.  
|
|So?  That doesn't mean that you *will*.

Yes.  For Jesus rose from the dead to show us that there is life after
death. He even gave the example of God being the God of the living and
not the dead.  He said God was the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob,
but how can he be their God, if they are gone and never to return?
He is their God because they will be resurrected.

|>We are told not to greive like those who have no hope (i.e., no hope of
|>eternal life or the afterlife).
|
|Look, only if you are *wrong* are you guaranteed that you will be able to
|see all the people you have ever loved or whose company you've enjoyed
|again.  Why?  Because you'll have to be *wrong* for *everyone* to be
|"saved" in some sense.

I didn't say I'd see everyone.  We have to make use of the opportunities
God gives us, but the choice is the individuals.  God is just he will
not judge you unfairly.

|Unless, of course, you propose some traversable connection between "heaven"
|and "hell".

And there is not.

|>|Can you say the same?  If so, then what do you need this supernatural
|>|entity for?  If not, then how does this make you any better off than I
|>|am?
|>
|>Not only does God help in the tough situations he helps in the day to
|>day ones.  All of the 'complex' system of beliefs we have can be summed
|>up in one phrase 'love your neighbor as yourself', 
|
|Oh, yeah, right.  Tell me how "no sex before marriage" is derivable from
|this in today's world.  Tell me how "no homosexual expression" is
|derivable from this.  Tell me how "you will roast in hell if you do not
|believe X" is derivable from this.

Because God told us that these were not in our best interests.  I can
tell you from my limited knowledge that these are not good for individuals
or for society - neither is divorce, theft, kill, greed, etc.

|>for love does no harm to another.  Yes, God does help in my daily activities.
|
|Well, all I can say to this is "good for you".  Whether your belief is
|an accurate reflection of reality or not is pretty much irrelevant when
|it comes to your own life.  But when it comes to the lives of others,
|it's very much relevant...

If God has shown us how to love, then can share this with others, can we not?

|>|Look, even your beloved "Jesus" was unable to do a damned thing when
|>|it was *his* time to die, because in the end he *did* die, at least
|>|in a physical sense (and that is basically what you're talking about
|>|here.  "Lifespan" isn't a meaningful term in any other sense).
|>
|>He rose from the dead and IS victorious over death, for he did not die again.
|
|Bull.  You don't see him walking around today, do you?  QED.

Correct - HE went into heaven and is at the right hand of God, until
it is time for him to return.  I don't think these modern day TV
preachers are seeing Jesus, even though they say they do, for he is
in heaven and not on earth.  They may see him in heaven, people have,
but they were about to die.  The Holy Spirit is here on earth today.

|>Again, the point was that Jesus was telling us that we can't really
|>do anything about this physically life, so what can we ourselves do
|>about our spiritual life.
|
|Yeah, but "Jesus" is ever so *wrong* about this.  Like I said, we can
|do *a lot* about our own physical life.  About the only thing we can't
|do is ensure that we live our physical lives forever.  But if your

Isn't that what you want to do and you can't do it?

|belief system is right, then that's your God's fault, for it *could*
|have set up the universe such that eventual death wasn't guaranteed,
|i.e. set things up such that the probability of eventual physical death
|was zero.

He could have and you are right about physical natural life.  He does
provide for eternal life with himself - in fact the writer of Ecclesiastes
says that God has placed eternity in the hearts of men, but they cannot
fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

|>|If you're asking about what one can do about an "afterlife", then I
|>|have no answer at all, because I don't even know that an "afterlife"
|>|even exists, much less what form such a thing would take if it did
|>|exist.
|>
|>You exist today, correct?  
|
|Yeah, so?
|
|>What do you think happens to your essence when you die?  
|
|I haven't a clue.  It may simply cease to exist.  It might be transferred
|into the body of a frog.  It might be consigned to floating among the stars.
|There are countless possibilities.

What other thing in today's world ceases to exist?  It may be transformed,
but it doesn't cease to exist.  God creates, but once it is created
it is only transformed and not eliminated.

|>Is there more to life than the body and chemical reactions?
|
|I have no idea.  But I haven't seen any evidence so far to suggest that
|there is.

See above.

|>|You have certain beliefs regarding that last, but I've seen nothing
|>|to compell me to treat it any more seriously than the beliefs of the
|>|Hindus, for example.
|>
|>I see Christian society has not advanced beyond that of Hindus, correct?
|
|What do you mean by "advanced"?

Our treatment of people, our technology, our understanding that animals
are not gods, etc.

|I'm sure that, as measured by the Hindus, their society is far superior
|to ours.

Do they even attempt to subdue the earth?  They think the earth and
karma(?) controls.  Some if not all of them believe in a set of rules
of the universe that controls what happens to them after they die.

|If you want to attribute technological society to any particular religious
|sect, then I wish you luck, because I don't think you can.  But I'll tell
|you this: the people that have contributed most to our understanding of
|the world were willing and able to shove their religious preconceptions
|aside and look at what the data were *really* saying.  In that sense, they
|were being agnostic.

Could it not be that they looked at the world and nature as the result
of a creator and so believed there was something they could do to uncover
what the creator designed into the system?

|>|>It is a teaching from Jesus to show how little control we have over
|>|>this physcial world in which we live.  
|>|
|>|Heh.  Give it time.  Our control over the physical world grows with
|>|each passing day.
|>
|>Heh.  It grows?  Can you control the wind?  
|
|To some degree.  I can build structures to redirect it.  I can build
|machines to produce it.

True on a very small level - what about world wide meterological modelling?

|>Can man even model it very well?  
|
|Depends on what you mean by "very well".  We can model it well enough to
|build flying machines that use it.  Is that good enough?

What about wind shear?  They know a lot but somethings are still
pretty complex.

|>Can man predict the weather?
|
|Obviously, to some degree, yes.

Again on a small scale.  Five day forecasts are only about 20% correct.

|We can do all these things to some degree, and the degree to which we're
|able to do these things is growing with time and understanding.  Again,
|with *zero* help from your God.

God didn't give us information on how to subdue the earth, but he told
us to do so.  He has given us all the information we need to know on
how to relate to him and to each other.

|You have some point to all this?

Yes, man understands very little of the universe and man's largest
achievements are very small as compared to the universe.

|>|Technology has the potential to do *a lot* for us (indeed, it has
|>|*already* done a lot for us).  That technology comes directly from
|>|what we learn about the real world, and I dare say that your "God"
|>|has been of *zero* help to us in this regard.  None of the
|>
|>Oh,  I guess you think God didn't intend for to advance in our
|>understanding and use of this world in which we live.  
|
|I didn't say that, did I?  I said your God didn't *help*.

He told us to subdue the earth.  He told us how to live and relate
to himself and others.

|>God said
|>to Adam and Eve, to multiply (have children) and fill the earth AND
|>to subdue the earth and to rule over the animals.  
|
|So what?  God *commanding* something isn't the same as God helping
|man to *do* something.

We have a mind (a brain) that was given by God for our good.

|>Which other societes has advanced more then those in which Christian is
|>predominant.
|
|Again, depends on what you mean by "advanced".

Pick your own definition.

|>Don't most of the other religion, especially the eastern religions, 
|>teach that this world is more of an illusion than real.
|
|Different religions teach different things.  I would wager that at least
|one teaches that you should understand the world around you through
|discovery.  Christianity is not that religion.

Pick it and remember what I've said above.

|>|information we base our technology on comes from your beloved Bible,
|>|and yet I dare say that your very existence depends much more on
|>|that technology than on the words in your Bible (for you would have
|>|no food to eat were it not for agricultural technology).
|>
|>Oh, I remember everyone dying off along time ago, because of the
|>lack of gardening techniques.  
|
|You think God *gave* these people gardening techniques?  Sorry, but
|man had to discover and develop them for himself.
|
|>Even in the first few chapters of the
|>Bible, God put Adam in the GARDEN OF EDEN and told him to CARE FOR
|>IT AND TO WORK IT.
|
|Yeah, right.  Did it give them farm tractors to tend to the gardens
|with?  Did it give them insecticides to fend off insect attacks?  Did
|it give them the tools?

They didn't need them then, but they did develop - I never said any differntly.

|Or did man have to *make* these things for himself?  It looks to me
|like man did the work.  And, in fact, this is what the archaelogical
|evidence says.

True.

|>|This is ridiculous.  Look, if your ideas about God are right, then
|>|God *created* us.  Whether what we are today is the direct result of
|>|that creation or the indirect result of that creation is *irrelevent*
|>|if this God is all-knowing and all-powerful (such a being *never*
|>|fails to get its way).  It is *God's* doing if we fail to meet the
|>|standards of God (who do you think decided upon the standards,
|>|anyway?).
|>
|>If we had no free will, then you'd have a point.  
|
|Free will is irrelevent to this discussion.  Only if said free will is
|*unrestricted* do you have any argument at all.  But our will is severely
|restricted by the universe we live in.  A universe which was, according
|to you, created by your God.
|
|>We do and mankind,
|>throught he first man Adam, chose to disobey God.  Do you think we
|>would chose differently?
|
|Since the universe follows statistical law, we would eventually have
|chosen to disobey God, given enough time.  It's not *our* fault that
|the universe follows statistical law, and it's not *our* fault that
|God chose to give us a nonzero probability of disobeying.
|
|>Again, the point was we have so little knowledge of this physical world,
|>how can we even do anything in the spiritual.  
|
|Well, gee, if we had the kind of access to the spiritual world that we
|have to the physical world, maybe we'd get somewhere.
|
|But it would seem that your God is unwilling to allow such access (else
|we would have it), so we have no way of learning for ourselves what that
|world is like.

Some of us do - it is by faith that we have it - it is a gift from God.

|>Jesus told the people that
|>the birds of the air don't even worry about where they will get their
|>food, for God has provided it for them.  
|
|A-hahahahaha!!!!   Wanna bet???

Sure.

|What, do you think birds don't have to *work* to get their food?  If so,
|then you're *wrong*.  Birds, like any other animal, have to *work* to
|get their food.

How did the seeds get in the ground to grow - do you see the birds out there
digging and planting seeds?

The creation story tells us the sequence of events that allowed the next
part of creation to exist.

land and water were created, along with light,
then plants grew,
then animals were formed,
then man was formed.

Each of these needed the previous stage.

|Unless they're being cared for by humans.  Again, a case where humans,
|not your God, make the difference.

They gather it, but they don't put it there - how did they get started?
Wouldn't they have starved for lack of food, if it wasn't there before
they were?

|If birds don't "worry" about getting food, it's because they don't have
|brains capable of such a thing.

True - and Jesus told us not to worry either - we can learn from the birds.

|>He even compares a flower (a lily)
|>to the most arrayed king of the world (King Solomon) - Jesus said Solomon
|>in all of his splendor was not as beautiful as the lily.
|
|Well, this depends on who you ask, doesn't it?  I'm sure King Solomon
|thought himself *much* more impressive than a lily.
|
|>|However, I strongly believe that if the ability to grow taller at will
|>|ever comes about, it will come about through our growing understanding
|>|of the universe around us, i.e. through technology, and *not* through
|>|some hocus-pocus belief in "Jesus".
|>
|>Oh.  Jesus rose from the dead a little before technology has achieved
|>it.  
|
|So you say.  But there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence of it.

Oh.

|>In fact he overcame death - for he never died again.  
|
|BZZZT.  He never overcame *physical* death, which (as far as I'm concerned)
|is the only kind of death worth discussing.  Anything else is pure
|conjecture.

What do you call his body walking, talking and eating then, if it
wasn't the overcoming of physical death?  His overcoming physical
death is the foundation of Christianity, for without it we have no
case.  That is what the people of that day were so excited about,
if it is ok to get excited about something like that.  They had seen
the risen Lord and were proclaiming it.

|>Has technology
|>done this?  Who is first in the area of knowledge and understanding?
|
|Technology has *obviously* extended the physical lives of human beings.
|And there's a lot of research being done into why humans age and die.
|Once they've got *that* figured out, they'll probably be able to do
|something about the aging problem.

Bzzt. 

|Of course, people will still die, because humans have a limited self-
|repair capability.  But even that might be augmented with nanotechnology,
|should that capability ever come about.  And then there's genetic
|engineering.

Bzzt. It is appointed unto man once to die.

|It's really sad that your God decided that humans would definitely have a
|finite physical lifespan.
|
|God's choice, not man's.

False - man was warned and he disobeyed.  This is the result of that
action.

|>|>It is amazing that one can look at the beauty of nature, for why should
|>|>there be beauty without a creator, 
|>|
|>|Why *shouldn't* there be beauty without a creator?
|>
|>You don't think a picture or building just plopped into being, but you
|>know that someone designed and built it.
|
|Yeah, so?  What has that to do with beauty?

It is an example of our recongnizing a designer in small things.
A picture can be beautiful, can't it?

|>|Beauty is a subjective thing, and is something whose definition varies
|>|from individual to individual.  Some regard nature as "beautiful",
|>|and some don't.  Few regard *everything* in nature as "beautiful",
|>|and few regard nothing in nature as "beautiful".
|>
|>Name something.
|
|Okay.  A mosquito.

What is not beautiful about it.  It can fly and function pretty well -
looks like a good design.

|>|One needn't believe in or see a "master designer" to wonder about the
|>|universe.  I'm living proof of that.
|>
|>You've NEVER even thought there could have been a Creator?  Not even
|>after someone suggested it?
|
|Of *course* I've thought that it's *possible* that there's a creator.
|I still think it's *possible*.

Good.

|But just because something's possible doesn't mean that things are actually
|that way.
|
|I don't complicate my life by making unnecessary assumptions.

Understood.

|>|>We look at trival things (paintings
|>|>and buildings) and say man he did a good job, but look how insignificant
|>|>and small man's works are and how big and beautiful the universe is.
|>|
|>|Right.  So?  Just because man is small and the universe is big doesn't
|>|mean that the universe was created.  That the universe is beautiful is
|>|a subjective interpretation, not an objective assessment.  It takes a
|>|human being (or perhaps a chimpanzee, if they're capable of this) to
|>|consider the universe beautiful.  This sounds to me more like an argument
|>|for the importance of humans, if anything, than an argument for the
|>|existence of some master designer of the universe.
|>
|>How did man get this ability to recognize beauty.  What survial purpose
|>does it have?????????
|
|I thought I already explained this.
|
|Recognition of beauty is a positive emotional response to external sensory
|input.  This response is pleasant, and thus makes the section of time the
|person is experiencing this more pleasant.  The rest I've already explained,
|but here it is again in case you didn't follow it the first time:

What is the need for beauty from an evolutionary view point?


I remember this.

|    Most people regard living as a more or less pleasant experience,
|    though.  If you are asking why *this* is, consider that someone
|    who considers life to be pleasant will be more motivated to
|    survive than someone who doesn't, and will thus be more likely to
|    reproduce.  Someone with a genetic disposition towards enjoying
|    life will have kids who are so predisposed, and that disposition
|    will eventually dominate the population.
|
|Recognition of beauty is one of the ways humans find pleasantness in life.
|The more beauty one finds in the world, the more incentive one has to
|survive.

I don't think this is true.  Many is a survivor, but I don't think
beauty is the driving force.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |