[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/4/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/4/96 [18:51] AKa

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/4/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/4/96 [18:51] AKalish (AKalish@www-16-26.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [18:51] they give credence to "Reason" but then poorly use it [18:51] most of them aren't even that intelligent [18:52] I'm sorry [18:52] good evening akalish [18:52] sorry for what? [18:52] hello akalish [18:52] this is the apologetics, right? [18:52] yes [18:52] hi topper [18:52] yes [18:52] how are you all? [18:52] good, thank you [18:52] what's the subject? [18:53] we were talking about the nature of hell [18:53] belief [18:53] yuck, what a nasty place [18:53] or rthe rthe nature of belief [18:53] very well, thanks [18:53] and G.K. Chesterton [18:53] nto a good subject [18:53] but one that must be understood for Christianity to make sense [18:53] so what is this room about? [18:54] do you know what apologetics is? [18:54] first time i have been here-when people were on [18:54] btw, hell is not a common subject [18:54] i thought i did but i guess i dont!! [18:54] we sort of wondered into it [18:54] what do you think that it is? [18:54] no idea [18:54] btw, I am not a good example of the apologists here [18:54] ok [18:54] want the definition? [18:54] sure [18:55] apologetics is the rational defense of christianity [18:55] sounds self depreciating [18:55] btw, it is not bible bashing [18:55] what is btw? [18:55] it is rational discussion\arguing [18:55] btw -> By The Way [18:55] irc lingo [18:56] you get into the habit of using it in order to save time and typing energy [18:56] oh. I am ignorant, but I learn!! [18:56] are you male or f and age, rais... [18:56] are you a christian, an atheist, or an agnostic [18:56] M [18:56] or something else [18:56] ? [18:56] by the way [18:56] cool huh [18:56] then you are not ignorant [18:56] christian basically, but not heavily, I am female and 37 [18:56] what sort of christianity? [18:57] evangelical? [18:57] experiential [18:57] what is heavily christian-i didnt realize weihgt was involved [18:57] catholic? [18:57] calvanistic? [18:57] lutheran? [18:57] Topper: you mean The weight of Glory? [18:57] i guess my basic beliefs are born again [18:57] ah [18:57] thank you [18:57] hm [18:57] heavily meaning not reaaaallly into it [18:57] oh [18:57] sorry [18:57] i was just kidding-iam sorry [18:57] you , rais and topper [18:58] yes? [18:58] yes [18:58] what denomination [18:58] I am basically catholic [18:58] it is difficult to say [18:58] my kids go to catholic school [18:58] (tehnically orthodox - it is a long story) [18:59] okay [18:59] apolo doesn't say much [18:59] he is a bot [18:59] where are you guys? [18:59] maryland [18:59] I am in NY [19:00] married? [19:00] yes [19:00] NY [19:00] topper: you are in college AND married? [19:00] alright rais!! where , near Roch? [19:00] LI [19:00] a little further south [19:00] olean??? [19:01] olean? [19:01] LI -> Long Islan [19:01] and work full time [19:01] that is why i cant wait to read chesterton after i graduate [19:01] okayyyy, my dad grew upin Brooklyn [19:01] Ak: are you using your husband's\son's account to get onto the internet? [19:01] one of our pastors is from brooklyn-do i fit in now [19:02] gee, how could you tell, it's hubby!! [19:02] yes, you always did topper [19:02] i am very sarcasitc, but dont mean anything [19:02] brb [19:02] me too topper, its a defence mech... [19:02] I did a whois [19:03] there are not many women by the name of andy [19:03] since you seem new to irc, I concluded that you were borrowing someone's account [19:03] ho de har, but there is a hubby in this house named andy [19:03] presumably a son\husbands [19:03] ah [19:03] what do you believe in? [19:03] religiously, I mean [19:04] that God created , and i have changed my beliefs on alot of the rest [19:04] what about Jesus? [19:04] do you believe in the Son of God thing? [19:04] (I do) [19:04] yes, from what i remember [19:04] using the terms metaphorically, of course [19:05] from what you remember? [19:05] stuff like he's with us all the time, died for us... [19:05] im back [19:05] like? [19:05] i do too [19:05] are you a member of a local church akalish [19:05] no [19:06] what i have trouble with is why things are allowed to happen down here [19:06] is there any particular reason why not? [19:06] Ak: ah, perhaps I might be able to help a little [19:06] like what? [19:06] if he is supposed to love us then we should be taken care of [19:06] Ak: may I recommend a book, first? [19:06] surely [19:07] Ak: The PRoblem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis [19:07] Ak: it is a GOOD book [19:07] Lewis is a good author [19:07] he has a great style [19:07] easy to read [19:07] interesting [19:07] almost conversational [19:07] got it rais, thanks [19:07] and lewis has no airs about him [19:07] it is very good [19:07] but to tell you knwo [19:07] first: do you believe in free will? [19:07] explain... [19:08] (btw, if oyu wish, I can show you how that is not contradictory to Go dbeing able to see the future) [19:08] excellent book [19:08] go ahead... [19:08] do you believe that we really can make choices? that we are not just machinces carrying out a role that we cannot avoid? [19:08] which, the problem of pain or the problem of choice? [19:09] Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-54.ppp.hooked.net) joined #apologetics. [19:09] Hi, you'all! [19:09] aborted babies dont have choices [19:09] hi fatjac [19:09] hi fatjac! [19:09] CTCP SOUND: arethere.wav You there??? from Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-54.ppp.hooked.net) to #apologetics [19:09] hey fat [19:09] Ak: what I mean is that human beings do have the cpability of choice, essentially that we are not predetermined to do everything that we do [19:09] Action: Fatjac says Howdy to raistlinn [19:09] and? [19:09] Action: raistlinn reponds with a large howdy back to the fat gentleman bearing the appelation "jac" in the corner [19:10] Wow! how do you make those long pop-ups so quickly? [19:10] sorry, now: which one do you wish me to explain first, free choice with God knowing the future, or the problem of pain? [19:10] Fatjac: after about 5-6 years of using computers, I can almost touch type [19:10] pain [19:11] Ak: ok [19:11] I keep wanting to call you raisin! [19:11] Ak: now, do you believe in free choice, that is, do you believe that we are not predetermined to do everything that we do [19:11] :-) [19:11] go ahead, if you wish [19:11] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [19:11] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [19:11] I have plenty of names, that would be just one more [19:11] hi cass [19:12] yes [19:12] ok [19:12] Now, are you familiar with the doctrine of the Fall? (we were once perfect (essentially the garden of eaden stuff) and then we turned away from God and became imperfect [19:12] ) [19:12] david cassidy is here!!! [19:13] yes [19:13] ok [19:14] Since we have free will, and we are imperfect, then we are going to make bad choices, correct? [19:14] greetings to everyone!! [19:14] that is a bad joke [19:14] brb [19:14] what do you mean by bad choices [19:14] toppper...I must of missed the joke..... [19:14] Ak: choices that are not out of love (that is, charity or concern for what is best for others) [19:14] Action: Fatjac says Howdy to Cassidy_ [19:15] Action: raistlinn notes that there is a lot of greeting going on on this channel; [19:15] topper (erics@mcpc07.mcc.jhu.edu) left #apologetics. [19:15] topper (erics@mcpc07.mcc.jhu.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:15] bye topper, hi topper [19:15] that was fast [19:15] :-) [19:15] raist...do you mind giving me a topic name to advertise the channel? [19:15] Cas: how about; "Apologetics: rational discussions of Christianity (no bible bashing)" [19:15] hello, Fat (you dont mind if I call you fat?) :-) [19:16] Ak? [19:16] Action: topper says hello all [19:16] fine. [19:16] Why should you be any different? [19:16] then i don't make a lot of bad choices, what are you gettin at? [19:16] yes rais [19:17] who are you talking to fat? [19:17] Ak: simply this: if we have free will, and we make bad choices, and we live in a physical world together, we are bound to harm one another at some point [19:17] Topic changed by Cassidy_!cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com: Apologetics: Rational discussions of Christianity (No Bible bashing...) [19:17] HUh? [19:17] true rais...... [19:18] Ak: If God is going to respect our free will, how would he prevent it [19:18] Ak: also. there is another aspect. [19:18] Ak: you are assuming that all pain\suffering is bad [19:18] you raise a good point [19:18] yes. pain and suffering iiisss bad [19:18] Ak: but have you never heard of the sports figure who was so dedicated to sports that it was his life, so much so that he became a real @#$@# to those around him [19:19] He uses it [19:19] your point? [19:19] Ak: then, he got into an accident and got paralised. All of a sudden he had to find a new focus in his life [19:19] Ak: be patient [19:19] Ak: he turns it aroun [19:19] d [19:19] raist:I was just going to say if we hold to an all good God and see all the pain and suffering in the world it would seem that God does not see pain and suffering as bad like we do. [19:19] Ak: works for charities [19:19] Ak: starts to love people [19:19] etc. [19:20] Right. How can a universe exist in which we have the inability to act in any way wich would cause harm or pain...and still maintain "freedom" by any def.? [19:20] what??? [19:20] Ak: there are plenty of examples that I can offer where you can clearly see that pain and suffering help people [19:20] fatjak: because he sees the end product of what the pain orchestrates [19:20] Ak: pain is real, it is violent, and it is all comsuming [19:20] never helped me onnnnneeee bit!!! [19:20] Ak: it has a tendency to pull us away from fake Gods that we set up [19:20] Ak: how are you so sure? [19:21] Ak: note: pain and suffering can also be taken badly by the person in question and go to bad ends [19:21] Ak: are you a mother? [19:21] topper:Kind of like mom, when you got your shots. [19:21] because I feel i am sadder than I would have been otherwise [19:21] bingo [19:21] yes, three kids [19:22] Ak: that would make it more difficult for you to see, as being a mother, you would naturally want nothing to hurt your children [19:22] Ak: but to borrow an example that was just mentioned, you have given your children shots, correct [19:22] Ak: and made them take mdeicine when they are sick, correct? [19:22] yes.... [19:22] Ak: and punished them, in some form, when they were bad, correct? [19:23] your point? [19:23] Ak: you saw the end result of it, the good that it would accomplish, and figured that it was a small price to pay for the end result [19:23] Ak: ayou love your children, correct? [19:23] (I assume that you do) [19:23] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com] [19:23] what do you mean small price to pay? [19:23] Ak: well, hold on one seconds [19:23] decond [19:23] second [19:23] I eman [19:24] AK: The immediate pain of the shot compared to immunity from samll pox. [19:24] Ak: you love your childrenb very much, correct? [19:24] yes, [19:24] Ak: and yet you do things to them that causes some suffering (ex: you bring them to the docotr and send them to school), correct? [19:24] topper:we can't seem to get an oar in, can we? [19:24] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [19:24] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [19:24] Fat: you row? [19:25] IIII can't even get an oar in!! [19:25] sorry people...my servers doin funky things........... [19:25] Rais:She ahs to get the point now. [19:25] Fat: I jsut want ot make sure [19:25] Ak: you do those things, correct? [19:25] Action: raistlinn mentions that he rows (sweeps and sculls) [19:26] listen, i am feeling battered by you, i believe i will go... see ya [19:26] i like your metaphors fat [19:26] AKalish (AKalish@www-16-26.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [19:26] Action: Fatjac Aha! A little welcome humor. [19:26] how do you get apolobot to quote scripture? [19:26] John 1 1 [19:27] apolobot quotes scripture??? [19:27] yes, he does. [19:27] cool huh [19:28] syntax: @@@ [abbrv. book] [chap.] [verse] [19:28] Who are the Christians here? Where are you all from? [19:28] I thought he was just a bot. [19:28] i think you needed that one Raisna [19:29] top: which one? [19:29] the one i just quoted eph 1 5 [19:29] He I'm impressed. [19:30] ops [19:30] oops [19:30] does it work in the middle? @@@ john 1:11 [19:31] can it quote multiple verses [19:31] ah, that's it [19:31] topp: why did I need that? [19:32] only 2 verses...exp: John 1 1 2 [19:32] ugh [19:32] this thing doesn't have a very good translation [19:33] not too bad, though [19:33] KJV...but its better than none at all. [19:33] [[john 1 1 [19:33] nope... [19:33] Gen 2: 15 [19:34] GE 2:1 [19:35] Ge 2: 2 3 [19:35] Raist:I think you were hitting poor AK over the head with a club. [19:35] Fat: I didn't mean to [19:36] Fat: and it didn't seem like that to me [19:36] I know. [19:36] anselm (serenity@slip105.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [19:36] hm [19:36] greetings [19:36] hi ans [19:36] greetings anselm [19:37] what grotesque imagery [19:37] anslem: are you an atheist? [19:37] ha! [19:37] it is there, too [19:37] :-) [19:37] sorry, a little side note [19:38] look at that and now look a this [19:38] predestination is a very biblical lucid subject that just doesnt fit well with our reason [19:38] topper (erics@mcpc07.mcc.jhu.edu) left #apologetics. [19:38] I'm usibg a Douay and I lost averse there?? [19:39] averse=a verse [19:39] anselm:You think it was imagery??? Read on. [19:39] Anselm; You there?? [19:39] ok [19:39] yes [19:39] now everyone [19:40] please look at these to verses [19:40] sorry. I got some mail I had to look at [19:40] Do you have a bible handy to read the rest of that passage? [19:40] look at the first, where is the tree of knowledge of good an evil? [19:40] Fatjac: please address your comments, was that to me? [19:41] please everyone respond to this one [19:41] Action: raistlinn asks where the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil is [19:41] answer: you don't know, it doesn't say, the tree of life is in the middle, not the tree of good and evil [19:41] Common Raist, read on your own time. [19:41] That was to anselm. [19:42] and God simply said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [19:42] just a sec [19:42] Conclusion: Eve God it wrong, she mixed up what God said [19:42] its in our fallen natures..... [19:42] Question: is it possible that sin can result from not knowing God's commandments? [19:42] interesting, no? [19:42] OK now, i have to scroll for a moment [19:42] raist:Anslem thought john 6:55 was gross imagery. [19:42] not an atheist, a deist. [19:43] Fat: hm [19:43] that was to raistlinn [19:43] Anslem: what sort of a deist? [19:43] Ans: thanks [19:44] raist:Formal sin certainly, personal sin, no. [19:44] here's a macro definition I whipped up for my #deism... [19:44] Deism is a belief in a loving creator, an ultimate & eternal being, who is omnipresent & omniscient but *not* omnipotent. [19:44] Contrary to popular Christian propaganda, ultimate reality ("god" if you prefer) as conceived by deism is not impersonal at all, merely non-omnipotent, hence non-controlling. [19:45] that's my take on it, anyway. [19:45] anselm:Contradiction! How can a being be omnipresent and omniscient without being omnipotent. [19:46] However, even when I was a christian, I still thought that imagery was grotesque,. [19:46] anselm:If you're not christian there's no point in discussing john 6 etc. [19:47] Anselm:or the bible for that matter. [19:47] Fatjac: I see no contradiction. [19:47] anselm...thats interesting. First, how does one determine the "personality" of God based on a-priori deductions? second, where do you think your god's limitations are? why? Why is it so import ant that a God be "not controlling"? [19:48] As for the bible, what, you don't discuss it w/ non-christians? That's an odd attitude. [19:48] Kaza (iqsys@anx_9.global.co.za) joined #Apologetics. [19:48] Kaza (iqsys@anx_9.global.co.za) left #Apologetics. [19:48] Fatjac: perpersonal sin: not knowing what is right\wrong, what is lving, etc. what is best ofr a person, etc. [19:49] anselm....is it really that odd? [19:49] anselm:If you're a non-believer what's the point. It's like discussing the nature of God with an ahteist. [19:49] Then how wd a xian hope to ever convert an atheist, of even a deist? [19:49] raist:No, I would define personal sin as when you do know what's right but don't do it. [19:50] Fat...exactly. where their is disagreement on the basic axioms, the discussion ought not progress. [19:50] Anslem: well, if you don't believe in it, you must think it worng or lies, hence there is little to be gained from disucssing it, though if you wish, we will discuss it [19:50] Rais:Formal sin as when you don't know something is a sin and so it. [19:50] Cassidy: It's important that god not be construed as all-controlling because of theodicy, i.e. the responsibility god wd have for evil. [19:50] Fat: ah, ok [19:50] Anslem: God can't be omnipotent for free will to exist? [19:51] anselm....by arguing the QUESTION of Gods existance...NOT the nature of God...as if both parties share that assumption!! [19:51] No, I'm not asking you to discuss it, I'm just seeking clarification of your remark - you can't always see it as futile or you cdn't witness to your faith. [19:51] anselm:What do ytou think of free will as an answer to the problem? [19:51] Anslem: hjow about God is omnipotent but made us with free will and refrains from controling it out of love? [19:52] anselm....how did you arrive at your Deism? [19:52] Anslem: it is simply difficult to deal with those all of the time who wish not to believe you [19:52] Anslem: trying to convince people against there will is a tiring thing [19:52] raistlinn: My view is similar, however, I think the relinquishing of control wd be inherent in the act of creation (as in kenosis), not something god cd revoke at any time. [19:53] raist: Those people who agree with us are much nicer, aren't they? [19:53] anselm:Would you define kenosis for me? [19:54] Anslem: well, a creation cannot be greater than its creator, and every creator can destory its creation, since he must be greater than it (btw, not all of what humans do is create, sometimes we use things that are greater than ourselves and outside of ourselves and form it, that is not real creation, though) [19:54] Cassidy: I arrived at deism after finding it impossible to morally approve of xian doctrines, then embracing atheism due to metaphysical doubts, & finally the ontological arrgument, together with some theodical inspiration, mo ved me to deism. [19:54] Fat: indeed it is, apologetics is mostly functional only in convincing those who want to believe but have some cognitive impediments [19:54] or rather intellectual impediments [19:55] anselm....have you read Alvin Plantinga on The problem of Evil? [19:55] Naslem: which christian doctines do you find it impossible to morally approve of? [19:55] raist:It helps if you use multi\syllabic words sparingly. [19:55] Fat: but it is so booring [19:56] raistlinn: I'm agnostic as to whether god cd cease ontologically sustaining creation & thus annihilate it; I lean toward thinking god could do so, but I don't think god had the abilitiy to intervene on a case by case basis. [19:56] raist:Best to be understood. I'm still waiting to find out what kenosis is. [19:56] Anselm...it's in his work "God, Freedom and Evil"...I think you would be impressed.... [19:57] anselm:twice now you have inferred God mught change His mind. That doesn't compute in an omniscientt being> [19:57] Fatjac: Kenosis is the self-emptying of the creator out of love so as to create beings in its image. [19:58] anselm...why this inability in God? where lies the problem of involvement in creation? [19:58] I read Plantinga, yes. [19:58] Fat: there are so few monosyllabic words, my speah would ge monotonous [19:58] Anslem: do you think that God is linear temporal, or non-linearly temporal (i.e. that for God one moment is all moments, and all moments are one moment) [19:58] Raist:I'm getting to like you more nad more. Your typing is getting as band as mine. [19:59] Fat: :-) [19:59] I wd not want to regard god as a willing accomplice to evil. Anyone w/ ability to intervene in a moral catastrophe is morally obliged to do so. [19:59] Anselm...well? what do you think about his rendering of the pr. of Evil...or his ver of the Onto. arg.? [19:59] Anslem: what do you mean? [19:59] Anslem: if a man is going to kill himslef, I am morally obliged to stop him? [19:59] I agree w/ the ontic argument, tho' Hartshorne deals with it better, IMO, but his take on evil I found almost offensive. [19:59] Anslem: and then at every opportunity, he tries [20:00] Anslem: and he won't listen to anything [20:00] Anslem: eventually, he is not alive anyhow [20:00] Anslem: but that is a bad example [20:00] raist:Your not trying to insert God into time? [20:00] His whole approach to philosophy, his sharp distinction twixt "pastoral" & "philosophical" concerns is alien & even repugnant to me. [20:00] tempus fugit [20:00] Well, it's been fun but I got to go. [20:00] It's 'Howdy-Doody' time. My gin and tonic are calling. Bye. [20:00] Anslem: btw, has it never occured to you that pain and suffering can be beneficial to the sufferer? [20:00] Fat: no, trying to make sure that he is out of time [20:01] Ans? [20:01] raist: suicide isn't a great example,since it might be legitimate; murder wd be better. [20:01] Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-54.ppp.hooked.net) left #apologetics. [20:01] Anslem: you are correct [20:01] Anslem: but anyhow, do you believe that God is linearly temporal or a-linearly temporal?> [20:02] I dislike lag [20:02] raistlinn: god, IMO, is temporal in some sense; I don't believe in a *living* being *outside* time. [20:02] Anslem: hm, so time is not a creation? [20:03] Anslem: but time and space are linked, they are inseparable [20:03] Anslem: thus, if space was created, time must have been as well [20:03] pain and suffering can be beneficial to ppl under *certain* circumstances - of course I know that. So? All I contend is that not *all* instances can be explained away that way without resulting in nihilism. [20:03] Anslem: do you believe God to be corporeal? [20:03] Anslem: are you so sure? [20:03] Not corporeal, no. The temporal thing I'm still working thru. [20:03] anselm...well...that is too bad. I personally enjoyed his thoughts on the inability to eliminate evil without also limiting moral good. It was almost comforting. [20:04] Anslem: can you see all of the results in a person's soul of all pain and suffering that you can dismiss it as unnecessary? [20:04] Anslem: well, without corporality, linear temporality makes no sense [20:04] Anslem: time is the changing of matter [20:04] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial48.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:04] Anslem: in a linear sequence [20:04] Prof!!!] [20:04] I'm as "sure" as anyone who's invested much of their life in carefully thinking thru such matters; I don't clain certainty. And more important: I don't believe ppl who disagree w/ me a re doomed to hell. [20:04] greetings prof. [20:05] hiya :-) [20:05] raistlinn - hiya! [20:05] Anslem: nor do I, we have something in common (I don't believe that people who disagree with me are doomed to hell either, some of them might get there before me (using the terms metaphorically, of course) [20:05] raist: If *all* suffering is necessary, then I can't see how anything ultimately matters. [20:06] Anslem: why? [20:06] Anslem: the idea is to move people to a state of perfection in which n suffering is necessary [20:06] Anslem: and besides, a large amount of the suffering that goes on in this world goes on because the people who suffer choose to [20:06] Anslem: haven't you ever seen the people who wish to be angry? [20:07] I fail to see why without corporality, linear temporality makes no sense [20:07] Anslem: or the mother who refuses to stop greiving for her lost son? [20:07] why shd I define time as changing of matter [20:07] Anslem: wihtout matter, how can you be linearly temporal? linear temporality is the chaning of corporeal things [20:07] raist: who are these ppl wishing to be angry? [20:07] Anslem: matter can only exist in one place at one time [20:08] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com] [20:08] Anslem: have you never been angry at someone? [20:08] Anslem: and it felt in some way good? [20:08] Anslem: have you never cursed someone when you should help them? [20:08] Action: ProfG came into something here that he just can't seem to pay attention to... [20:08] lol [20:09] Anslem: cursed at someone when they cut you off in driving rather then be thankful that you get to sit someplace with the glory of creation? [20:09] :-) [20:09] I hope that I am not THAT booring [20:09] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-04.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [20:09] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [20:09] heheheh [20:09] Anslem: ? [20:09] not boring, just gotta get the logs :-) [20:09] re cassidy [20:09] OK, raistlinn, of course I've gotten angry & swore at ppl for insufficient reason. The point being? [20:10] I cant seem to stay on today (sheeesh!) [20:10] thank you. [20:10] I'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments (if I seem slow) [20:10] Anslem: you chose to do that, when you would have been happier if you did something more loving [20:11] anselm: your nick always confuses me. Acolyte used to use the nick St_Anselm or Anselm when we first met. [20:11] Anslem: that suffering (and being angry is unpleasant) was your choice [20:11] Cassidy: I didn't dismiss Plantinga out of hand, I'd enjoy talking about him, but I didn't find that book very comforting because of his philosophical methodology. [20:11] Prof...I dont think the two have ever met! [20:11] A book I did derive comfort from was Kushner's *When Bad Things Happen to Good People*. [20:11] Plantinga rocks :-) [20:11] ooooof [20:12] ProfG: Do a whois on me [20:12] Cassidy: I'm fairly certain acolyte met anselm here [20:12] I've spoken to Acolyte a few times. [20:12] I think prof already did... [20:12] oh.. [20:12] Anslem:" a great deal of the suffering in the worl din unpreventable, The suffers choose to suffer. IT would be pointless to try to stop them, if they have free will, and you repect that, (which, btw, you mus t do in order for them to have happiness), you must allow them to suffer) [20:12] yeah, /whois, so? [20:12] world is ... [20:12] sorry for the mistype [20:12] Yes, suffering *can* be a choice; the holocaust was not a choice for its victims. [20:13] So, I'm not Acolyte, that's all I intended. [20:13] doh [20:13] :-) [20:13] Anslem: an yet, many profited by it (I mean in teh spiritual sense). many good people went on to meat God, and many people got a spiritual awakening, they had nothing left, they were forced to go to God, and thence to true hap piness [20:14] "what we have here is a failure to communicate..." [20:14] Aco wouldn't be caught dead with "anselm" uncapitolized...... [20:14] LOL [20:14] ...or without the prefix "saint" [20:14] Action: anselm laughs [20:14] Pain & suffering can cause people to foget their pitiful obcessions and seek after, or be receptive to, true happiness, for which we were all made [20:14] hehehe [20:14] Action: raistlinn wonders at what is anslem laughing [20:14] Cassidy's joke [20:14] Nick change: ProfG -> St_Acolyt [20:14] ok, at least it is not what I am saying [20:14] :-) [20:14] haha [20:14] Anslem: do you follow? [20:15] heheh [20:15] Nick change: St_Acolyt -> ProfG [20:15] certainly not,I'm far too civil for that ;-) [20:15] far to civil for what? [20:15] I follow, but I'm only (possibly) disagreeing w/ the extreme of trying to explain *all* evil & suffereing that way. [20:16] to laugh at ppl's serious points, raistlinn. [20:16] ah [20:16] thank you [20:16] anyhow [20:16] Anslem: how would you explain the rest? [20:17] Alas, I wd like to try, but I must sign off for a couple hours. I'll drop in later. [20:17] I've enjoyed the discussion thus far. [20:17] adieu for now. [20:17] anslem: raistlinn@htp.net [20:18] email me [20:18] OK [20:18] if you like [20:18] that wd be interesting. Bye [20:18] Action: anselm is returning to a reality than which far greater can be conceived [20:18] anselm (serenity@slip105.UCS.ORST.EDU) left irc: RL beckons :-( --------------------------------------------------- [20:45] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) returned to #apologetics. [20:45] ahhh....activity! [20:45] red is BACK :-) [20:46] got cut off [20:46] red! server giving you greif? [20:46] is there a specific topic here? [20:46] Cannibal (philcs@slip1.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [20:46] hiya canb [20:46] so Red...do tell. Do we hail you as a brother or welcome you as an unbelieveig friend? [20:47] hey cann [20:47] cassidy: neither. [20:47] hi Cassidy_ :) [20:48] well...I guess you got a point, huh? friend is a little strong for most IRC aquainences...... [20:48] cassidy: to elaborate, i'm not christian, but i do believe in God [20:48] good. That is helpful information. [20:49] and you? [20:49] well...you boys/girls will soon have to play without cass....it is, after all, Maunday Thirsday. [20:49] Christian. [20:49] Thursday. [20:49] cassidy: what is this about a new gospel of thomas? When was this discovered? [20:50] Red...perhaps you could tell me. Its news here..... [20:51] (red..I knew there was a reason you sat there sooo quietly....you sly dog!) [20:51] cassidy: I dont know, that's why I'm asking! There's front page material on Jesus on Time and Newsweek [20:51] it's Easter after all [20:52] PRofg: that explains it [20:52] I seriously, dont know either. What do they suggest are the implications of this discovery? [20:52] cassidy: I havent read the whole thing yet. [20:53] cassidy: but basically, what they said is that the Jesus Convention has voted/determined that most of what Jesus is attributed in saying was invented by the church of the day [20:53] Cannibal (philcs@slip1.vianet.net.au) left #apologetics. [20:53] hmmmm....let us know. Any such discovery is of interest to me. [20:53] You mean the "Jesus Seminar"? [20:53] what a LARK [20:54] profg: yes..I think that's what it is [20:54] Red...yeah...They've been around for awhile. [20:54] those guys are IDIOTS - and I say that academically speaking [20:54] not disparagingly [20:55] yes. It has benn widely agreed that their approach leaves much to be desired. [20:55] the thing with Christianity is that its based on one book...what if in some future time critical parts are proven untrue? Does your entire "faith" crumble"? Food for thought! [20:57] Red...that is not accurate...it is a collection of books spanning a millinium and a half. And to be frank...I dont forsee to many attacts on its validity that haven't already been postulated.... [20:58] cassidy: but for arguments sake, lets say that it is proven wrong. What of your faith then? [20:59] the Christian faith is based on the Bible being TRUE, Red, not on blind adherence to something we are not sure of [20:59] red..."it" are we still referring to a single book? I suppose it would then depend in large part on the content of the book.... [20:59] cassidy: I am referring to the bible [21:00] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:00] hi bawn [21:00] musha (jmartens@dyn-2.netnation.com) joined #Apologetics. [21:00] hiya prof [21:01] hi [21:01] hi musha [21:01] hi ProfG [21:01] is anyone talking about anything in particular today? [21:01] red...well, again. I dont forsee attacks of such force as to outshadow anythind raised to date. But a single book or letter.... [21:02] cassidy: but u didnt answer my previous question "for arguments sake..." [21:02] right now, the veracity of the Bible, mushq [21:02] ok [21:02] cassidy: but for arguments sake, lets say that it is proven wrong. What of your faith then? [21:02] what does veracity mean? [21:03] that the bible is proven wrong? [21:03] Red: if the entire Bible were show to have been written by an insane asylum inhabitant 3 years ago, I might agree. Maybe. [21:03] Red...for arguments sake? fine. No bible...no Christianity. non-Christian Theism or Deism. [21:03] veracity = truth [21:03] Action: Bawn would still believe in God..... a God and creator. [21:03] thanks [21:04] Profg: is this statmenet by G.K. Chesterton something like presupositional apologetics? "In dealing with the arogant assertor of doubt, it is not the right method to tell him to stop doubting. It is rather th e right method to tell him to go on doubting, to doubt a little more, to doubt every day newer and wilder things in the universe, until at last, by some strange enlightenment, he many begin to doubt himself"? [21:04] i waould alway doubt such "proff" of the error of the bible [21:04] Red: question: how do you propose that large parts of the bible will be disproved? [21:04] CAssidy: no ..no..all I'm asking is, lets assume that in the future (like next week) there is clear and solid evidence that the bible is wrong, what will become of your faith then? Is you entire beliefs based only on one book (t he bible) ? follow my drift? [21:04] Action: raistlinn is back [21:04] Red: you would need some type of more reliable documents contradicting it [21:05] hmm but the belief isnt based merely on the bible... (merely?) [21:05] Red: and you suppose that they will be produced? [21:05] Red: and besides, what is it that you beleive in? [21:05] raist: thats not the point I'm trying to make [21:05] I mean there were christians around before the bible was in print [21:05] raistlinn: in a way. Atheism ultimately leads to nihilism, and presups attempt to show such [21:05] Red...but I dont consider it necessary to argue hypothisis contrary to fact. Many like to pull possible worlds out of the magicians hat. It is counterproductive to reasonal debate. [21:06] Red: are you a christian (if so, my apologies, I misread the log) [21:06] reasonable...(perhaps I could type in one of those possible worlds, eh?) [21:06] cassidy: perhaps as you wonder about things, life and religion etc, you will think about my question? What is faith, really? Is it simply a belief in a book? [21:06] BRB... [21:06] +-26/m calif... [21:07] raist: no I am not. [21:07] Red: ok, then what are you? [21:07] Prof: btw, which guys are idiots? [21:07] lilax (jabradl@cello.gina.calstate.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:07] raist: the Jesus Seminar dudes and dudettes [21:07] you said so ina professional context [21:07] Nick change: lilax -> lilacs [21:07] Recloud no its not a belief in a book.. as I said ( and you conveniently have ignored me..am I laggeD?) christianityis more than a belief ina bible and there were christians long before the bible was in print as one book.... [21:07] raist: does it matter what I am? isnt this channel to talk about christianity? Suffice to say that I believe in God [21:08] hi lilax [21:08] hi lilacs [21:08] hey lilacs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:08] hi :) [21:08] Red....do you suppose I HAVEN'T thought about it every day for 3/4 of a decade? thenthink again. [21:08] no cass didnt you know? Christians dont think.. they blindly follow :) [21:08] Red: ah, so your beliefs are found not on a book\books + the testimony of people, they are founded on irrational presupositions and postulations? [21:08] ;) [21:08] Bawn: I'm not ignoring you! I do agree with your last statement. Christianity should be more than just a bible (as you say). But i doubt most people see it as you do. [21:08] I like the book better, myself [21:09] RedCloud then I doubt their christianity [21:09] hey Red , Who do you think Jesus was? [21:09] Thats why most of the worlds greatest thinkers have been Christians. [21:09] raist: why do you keep coming to what i believe in? All I asked, or put forward was a simple question [21:09] Jesus said the way to theFather was through Him [21:10] not a book. and btw what is your point? I came in late and have no idea what I am interrupting. [21:10] musha: what does it matter if I told you my opinion? [21:10] Red: what I am speaking of is the alternatives. believing in a book, personal experience, and the testimony of plenty of people seems pretty good, especially considering the alternatives [21:10] Red: what is your question, could you please restate it [21:10] Bawn: I think you got my point, and answered it quite admirably! [21:10] hehe [21:11] uh oh [21:11] uh oh what? [21:11] well usually if someone thinks I make sense.. I find oput later that I am wrong [21:11] raist: basically, what if the bible is proven untrue (for arguments sake, only here!) what will become of Christianity and their "faith"? (Bawn did answer me on this) [21:11] :-) [21:11] :) [21:11] hehehe [21:11] Action: lilacs thinks Bawn is funny [21:11] Red: i'd be interested in your opinion that is why it matters to me [21:12] The Bible contains the revelation of God. That revelation is the work of Christ...the preaching of which God uses to excite faith in his creatures. If that is not the case, then I could be true without such a revelation. If it i s, then Christianity and its historical distinctive truths could NOT be true. [21:12] Red: if it is proven that Christ was not the Son of God? Then chrsitianity would disintegrate [21:12] i'm interested in oter people and their opinions [21:12] Red: what would happen if it were proven that gravity doesn't realy exist? what would happen to modern physics? [21:12] at this point in time i'm interested in yours Red [21:12] Raistlinn if it was proven Christ was not the son of God I would try to become Jewish [21:12] Action: Bawn grins [21:13] rais: I dont entirely agree. I think Christianity might go in different directions. Perhaps refined and altered somewhere, but not disintegrate. [21:13] and wait for the messiah :) [21:13] definitely disintegrate, RedCloud [21:13] Red: if it was found that it was based upon a lie, it woulnd't fall apart? [21:14] Bawn: that is probably what I would do [21:14] musha (jmartens@dyn-2.netnation.com) left #Apologetics. [21:14] raist: Well, it depends on how big of a lie. [21:14] raistlinn (Raistlinn@tower.htp.com) got netsplit. [21:14] but how in the heck could ya prove Christ wasnt the son of God? I am likely to believe most folks that rise from the dead on the third day as predicted [21:15] bbl [21:15] lilacs (jabradl@cello.gina.calstate.edu) left #apologetics. [21:15] netsplit [21:15] c ya [21:15] the net has split! [21:15] brb [21:15] I cannot conceive of any possible way to be a Christian without knowledge of its Christian componants....and that would be at issue were the bible be proven a fabrication of some sort or otherwise false... [21:15] algaekill (Raistlinn@ joined #apologetics. [21:16] interesting [21:16] btw, I am raistlin [21:16] server crashed on me [21:16] anyhow [21:16] Cassidy wouldnt be a christian.. but would you still believe in God? [21:16] Red: what did you say? [21:16] algae :) [21:16] raist: Well, it depends on how big of a lie. [21:16] Bawn....yes. The Arguments for his existance are too compelling to reject God. [21:17] k [21:17] :) [21:17] cassidy: but, must u be a christian in order to believe in God? [21:17] I am lagged [21:17] Red...of course not! [21:17] RedClkoud you must be a follower of Christ in order to be in relatinon with God [21:17] algaekill (Raistlinn@ left irc: Read error to algaekill[]: Connection reset by peer [21:17] but not to believe in the existence of a higher being.. or even the God of Abraham [21:18] bawn: so, then what about those other 3.5 billion (or so) do they not have a relationship with God? [21:18] RedCloud what about them? [21:18] evidently not RedCloud [21:18] poor algae...its netsplitsville [21:18] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [21:18] though they will be given the opportunity and I will not discuss predestination/free will junk.. but these guys may :) [21:18] hi all and Profg [21:19] bawn: so, then all those 3.5 billion do not have a relationship with God ??? What if YOU were born as part of that society? [21:19] Red...why not? The real question here is...is it unjust for God to reject a man? if not, What reasons are acceptable? [21:19] afr :-) [21:19] "hi all and ProfG"? [21:19] am I missing something? [21:19] RedCloud had I been borna part of that society I would still be given the opporunity to know God. :) [21:19] afr: is that you? [21:19] just as they are [21:19] you've been missing [21:20] raistlinn (Raistlinn@tower.htp.com) got lost in the net-split. [21:20] Action: ProfG gets BUSY sometimes :-) [21:20] bawn: yes, know God as you say, but what about Christ? Would you believe in Christ (as u do now) if you were born, say a Hindu or Arab? [21:20] raistlinn (Raistlinn@tower.htp.com) joined #apologetics. [21:20] re raist [21:20] Action: RedCloud welcomes back raistlinn [21:20] RedCloud.. why do you think I wasnt born Hindu? :) [21:20] re all [21:20] Red...perhaps you could spell out yopur objection to Gods character. It would make it much easier to discuss. [21:20] server problems [21:21] bawn: You could be a Hindu, but my point was, society generally shapes your religion especially in those cultures [21:21] cassidy : I dont understand your last question [21:22] Red: yes, bu thtere are many instances where it does not, I have rationally accepted christianity, and am a convert from nihilism [21:22] RedCloud :) [21:22] Another question I see is: Is God obliged to deliver his message of redemption equally to all men? [21:22] Cassidy if God doesnt deliver it equally.. will he have more mercy to those who have less knowledge of Him? [21:23] He put in the heavens for all to see [21:23] RedCloud the previous questions was basically.. what does God owe us. [21:23] Cassidy: that is a stupid question, or rather, the answer is yes [21:23] Cass: he isn't obliged to anyone [21:23] raistlinn is it? [21:23] Cassidy: that is a good question. [21:23] Cass: so he is euqally not obliged to everyone [21:23] raistlinn I see nothing stupid about that question [21:23] Bawn: well, it is sort of stupid [21:23] DOES EVERYONE HERE SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING JUST NOW? [21:23] Red...there are implicit objections in your questions...but they are difficult to adress without clarity... [21:24] bawn: does God? of course, Got loves everyone [21:24] raitlinn. mayhaps we are not as intelligent as ya :) [21:24] Red...tell us. [21:24] bawn: must God? of course not, god owes no one anything [21:24] pilgrim (Rooster@ joined #apologetics. [21:24] REd: don't shout [21:24] howdy pilgrim [21:24] hi pilgrim [21:24] hey Bawn [21:24] Bawn: perhapse I should not have called it a stupid question [21:24] raistlinn [21:24] Everyone is actually discussing this in a rational manner without quoting a book: you are all using your own reason (so far as is possible) [21:24] raistlinn perhaps not [21:25] raist...equally not obliged? Im not sure I see the significance of that distinction.... [21:25] profg: I only shout when I get inspiration [21:25] bawn: but it is close, as the answer is almost obvious [21:25] raistlinn I dont think it is so obvious [21:25] Red!!! imagine that!!! actually, it happens often. [21:25] raistlin: the only stupid question is the one thats not asked [21:25] Cassidy: of the distinction that God does not have to do things for us, he chooses to? [21:25] Red: that is the point of this channel [21:25] raistlinn [21:25] Milhous (ircle@ joined #apologetics. [21:25] we can quote if we want to [21:25] hey milhouse [21:25] Red: the only stupid question is the one where the answer is ignored [21:25] And there is a time for quoting from a "book"...but not now. [21:26] raistlinn hmmmmmmmmm *shrug* [21:26] hi mil [21:26] yes bawn? [21:26] thanx, prof. ;) [21:26] profg: good! I just get a little irritated when someone says "this is the absolute truth because it says so in a book!" [21:26] Action: RedCloud spoke too soon... [21:26] Red: it is better than having no idea as to what i the absolute truth [21:27] Red: it is the absolute truth. AND it says so in a book. [21:27] Hello. [21:27] profg: lol [21:27] Red: better a child know that it should not steal because "daddy said so" than it not know that it should not steal [21:27] hi mil [21:27] if God loves everyone equally, why did he tell the Isrealites to kill all sorts of people./. and in many casews . to " ;eave no one alive " [21:27] Action: Bawn needs typing lessons [21:27] Cass: you don't see the importance of that distinction? [21:27] brb [21:27] ProfG (wgreen01@ left irc: Leaving [21:27] or did his equal love come after the cross? [21:27] Red...You will find few of those in here. However, if the "book" is determined to be a trustworthy account of the life and work of Christ, then such an approach would be wholly justified. [21:28] Bawn: I dont believe the God of love would ever do that! Thats wheere I disagree with the bible! [21:28] Bawn: perhaps the people to be killed would be better off dead? [21:28] Raistlinn in many cases it was women and children..... [21:28] Red: what do yuo mean by Love, when you say God of love [21:28] RedCloud I do. I just wanted to see how raistlinn would answer [21:28] bawn: some parts of the bible attribute certain human (and evil) action to God. That is wrong! (in my opinion) [21:28] Bawn: and men are the only poeple who should be killed, or would be better off dead? [21:28] RedCloud for he is a just God. [21:29] RedCloud ( you yourself just said he was a God of Love!!) [21:29] Taco (you@mw2-185.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics. [21:29] taco! [21:29] hi taco [21:29] hi [21:29] Red? [21:29] raistlinn no men were the ones at war [21:29] raist...nope. Why should we imput the value of equality to the fact of God's obligation or lack there of to Humans? [21:29] raistlinn btw I disagree with the better off dead theory :) [21:30] raist: My belief is that God is not the tyrant and evil person that men have made him out to be. Far otherwise. He is all-love, all beauty, incapable of that kind of cruelty [21:30] Action: raistlinn mentions that some poeple seem to think God more the God of niceness than the God of Love (agape, ask for those who don't know this much greek) [21:30] RedCloud I see. [21:30] When God goes about building and protecting His chosen people, non-believers don't matter [21:30] Red...by what standard do you consider those parts of the bible morally "wrong"? [21:30] Red: dying is cruetly? [21:30] cruelty? [21:30] Death is a neutral event. We all die. [21:30] afr: all people matter to God. Even the evil ones. [21:30] afr; what do you mean? [21:30] RedCloud hold on I am going to qwuote a book for you *grin* [21:30] how do you quote verses? [21:30] protecting? [21:31] I mean I read the bible [21:31] Cass: hm, I made a mistake, I picked on the obligation rather than the equal [21:31] raist: punishment is cruelty. [21:31] Cas: I say that mercy is distriubteed equally [21:31] ok [21:31] yes... you make it sound like bad things don't happen to His People. [21:31] Action: RedCloud must get going now...(just when things were getting interesting) ...oh well... [21:31] perhaps that "cruelty" of the O.T. was a picture of Gods Judgement in Enternity [21:32] Punishment isn't cruelty. If a father disciplines his son, is it cruel? [21:32] ok [21:32] Redcloud: and how about discipline? [21:32] raist...that may well be...but only within the limitations of justice. [21:32] rais: perhaps on another day we can meet here again, and I will give u some material (if u want) on the nature of God [21:32] Cass: what do you mean? [21:32] Cruel is inflicting pain for no reason, or to derive pleasure from someone's suffering... [21:32] afr? [21:32] Hell is cruel punishment for enternity [21:32] Cass: mercy goes beyond justice, or it is no mercy at all [21:32] How can an all powerful entity do either good or evil? Those are human traits. [21:33] red: raistlinn@htp.net [21:33] RedCloud pretty much all of Job 34 addresses what your talking about... read it and let me know what you think [21:33] my home page is http://www.htp.com/raistlin/index.htm [21:33] my email address is on their [21:33] Action: RedCloud wishes everyone here a happy Easter, and may God bless and teach us all of His universe [21:33] Pilgrim: no, hell is the rejection of God [21:33] afr: I recommend a really good book dealing with the problem of evil. [21:33] pil...well, if it were *only* for the sake of an illustration to future readers, then I do believe it would be unjust. no, there must be better explanations../ [21:33] Red: walk with God [21:33] "When Skeptics Ask" Norman Geisler [21:33] bawn: Ive read Job [21:33] He deals with that issue very well [21:34] I don't have a problem with God's "evils" [21:34] also: CS Lewis has a book on it but I can't remember the name of the book [21:34] raist: since we're trading homepages, mine is: www.interlog.com/~meil/ [21:34] afr I have an essay on cruel evil, good and sin if your interested I can mail it to you [21:34] perhaps the humans picked it up from their creator afr [21:34] Action: raistlinn mentions that most people who object to hell seem to have no real idea as to what (rational, informed) christians really believe hell is [21:34] Milhous (ircle@ left irc: Leaving [21:34] REd :) [21:34] afr: by the way you said that it's apparent that you DO have a problem with relegating evil to being something God does [21:35] Free will will do that to you [21:35] Hell is the bearing of the wrath of God for eternity raist [21:35] RedCloud read it again :) tell me what you think about chapter 34 [21:35] well, I gotta be a goin... it's been fun even though short. :) [21:35] Pilgrim: are youa calvanist or a lutheran? [21:35] afr: have a good evening... ttyl [21:35] Taco (you@mw2-185.mwtech.com) left #apologetics. [21:35] raist...yes there would be/is! If it were able to transcend justice, then The work of Christ would be rendered unnecessary. God shows mercy on account of Christs death. The penalty was paid. Else why does he not extend that merc y to every man? [21:35] Action: RedCloud : bye all! [21:35] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_4_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank