[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/20/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/20/96 [12:16] U

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 - 4/20/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/20/96 [12:16] Urantian (russkin@bway-slip108.dynamic.usit.net) joined #Apologetics. [12:17] hullo urantian [12:17] cool =) [12:17] hello [12:17] nah, it didnt bore me to death. truthfully, i havent gotten through mch of it, becase of school stff. [12:17] sylvre thats ok [12:17] urantian whats up? [12:18] syl did u guys get back too late to cal that night or somethng? [12:18] not very much just seeing whats online this morning [12:19] urantian I take it you are connected in some waywith the Uranta book? [12:19] Acolyte; yeah.. we did. it was prretty late, and like i said, i was really irritated that night when i went out with them, and then i came back here and honestly forgot about calling you... i went straight to bed. [12:19] sylvre I am sorry [12:19] sylvre is she giving u a hard time or something? [12:20] aclyte; no, im sorry. i should have left you email or something. [12:20] I am curious about the meaninin of Apologetics [12:20] meaning [12:20] acolyte; no... [12:21] Urantian apoilogetics comes from the greek word Apologia, which means defense or reason for, this channel generally deals with a rational defence for Orthodox Christian Theism [12:22] Urantian, so does your nick indicate any connection with the Uranta book or something elese? [12:22] Uranta apologetics is an area of theology in general [12:23] it does [12:23] I am a reader of the Urantia Book [12:23] and the bible [12:23] ic, why? [12:23] Urantian why do you read the Uranta book? [12:23] well, sorry so quiet but I have to go now. Maybe later tonight or something. God bless. One of these days, I will be able to get into a real discussion here. :) [12:24] later Rev [12:24] I find great spiritual truths in it I believe it to be what it claims [12:24] RevWillie (wtburns@dialup5.newport.thirdwave.net) left #apologetics. [12:24] Uranta and what criteria do u use to know if something is true or false? [12:24] my heart and the indwelling spirit of the creator that speaks to me [12:25] ic [12:25] and how would you know when your heart is wrong? [12:25] or is your heart always correct in its assesments? [12:25] intuition [12:26] so because it is intuitive that makes it correct? [12:26] like all I have been wrong I keep an open mind and heart [12:26] Urantian please elaborate [12:26] so your heart can be mistaken? [12:26] I claim to have no answers for anyone else we are all on different paths but must ultimately go thru Christ to reach the creator my belief [12:27] who is Christ? [12:27] what is christ? [12:27] Jesus the creator Son of God [12:27] urantian obviously it is yor believe, you said it, I am just wondering how one would know if it is true or false is all [12:28] Urantia so you think thatJesus is a Son of God or is God the Son? [12:28] and to me the christ is the spirit that was bestowed to all who will open to it when Jesus Ascende [12:28] seems rather Docetistic [12:28] because what I have found in my relationship with the creator is experiential for me [12:29] urantia your interpretatin of your expereince can be erronous tho as can you expereince [12:29] Jesus is son of God a creator son [12:29] uranta what do you mean a "Creator son"?? [12:29] Urantia is Jesus God? [12:29] Son of God created our universe [12:30] Urantia is Jesus the only true God? [12:30] Grey2 (evil@ joined #apologetics. [12:31] hullo greay2 [12:31] only one god the creator of all Jesus was his son a creator son and our creator [12:31] to me [12:31] yonick (yonick@asgaard22.PEAK.ORG) joined #Apologetics. [12:31] urantia so he is not the only True God then? [12:31] Hiya [12:31] hullo yonick [12:31] he is a son of God [12:32] Hi apologetics [12:32] many creators all answering to one [12:32] uranta but u don't think he is God tho. correct? [12:32] uranta then u are not Trinitarian I take it. [12:32] the son of God [12:32] the wayshower [12:32] Urantaian, he is not the wayshower, he is the Way [12:32] I am a Chritian [12:32] r u? [12:33] what makes u a Christian? [12:33] yep [12:33] Jesus not only shows you the way, but he is himself THE way.. [12:33] my relationship with the creator and my relationship with Christ his son [12:33] Urantian, doesn't make a christian [12:33] and the desire to do the Father's will [12:34] since each persons relationship with the creator is personal and internal [12:34] urantian any cultist can claim as much, that is too ambigous to make one a Christian [12:34] brb [12:34] it is not possible for another to know or judge what is in ones heart [12:34] that is between the creator and the individual [12:34] I am not judging your heart, just what yourmouth says [12:35] our mouths can only interpret to others what is truly in our hearts [12:35] agree yonick [12:35] Only God knows what is in our hearts [12:35] each persons experience with God is personal [12:36] uranta if you deny central christian doctrines such as the Trinity, how can u be a christian? [12:36] God has given us free will to be creators of our unique experience with him [12:36] why do many christians feel it is necessary for others to accept their dogma or interpretation before they can be accepted in the kingdom [12:36] hmm.. [12:36] Urantian, Jesus is God the Son, he is the second PErson of the Holy Tirnity, he is Co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit [12:37] Urantian, no that is what the CHurch says, whcih is the pillar and ground of the truth [12:37] Urantia the CHurch is the messanger of God [12:37] the church has often distorted the message of god [12:37] What about all the other religion's dogma that feel the same as you--Moslem Budda etc [12:38] Uranta Jesus said that the Church would be giuded into all truth hence either you are wrong or Jesus is wrong, which is it? [12:38] Yonick what about them? [12:38] Could there be a sliver of truth in all of them--that is the connecting bridge betwen us all [12:38] yonick then Jesus was a liar then, he said he was the only way. Did he lie? [12:39] I happen to believe in God the Father, God the Eternal Son and God the Infinite Spirit [12:39] you can't judge whether I am wrong or not Ac that is the creators business [12:39] yonick thats nice, so? [12:39] Uranta oh but the BIble tells me to judge your doctrine [12:39] But it is not my place to judge anyone else religious beliefs [12:39] uranta and as far as I am concerned that is the Word of the creator [12:39] yonick ic, I disagree [12:39] I am getting a very clear understanding of what Apologetics is about and appreciate you sharing with me [12:40] urnatia ok [12:40] That is the problem with traditional Christianity--it verges on a false religion because of the dogma of the bible [12:40] The Bible is the four apostles and Pauls intereptation of what Jesus taught [12:41] urantian, it seems that the Uranta book, like other modern New Age works has mislead you to the True Apostolic meaning of Christianity, It is Gnostic and Docetistic to the Core. I suggest you read some of what the early Christian s taught about the CHirst.. [12:41] they knew [12:41] It formed a religion about Jesus not a religion of Jesus [12:41] yonick the Bible is the OT and the NT [12:41] Have you read the Urantia Book Acolyte? [12:41] yonick funny, his disciples didn't think so [12:41] Uranta I have read some of it, enough to know it is Docestistic and Gnostic [12:41] I have read it and th bible and don't feel mislead at all [12:41] If Jesus came back today many of the so called born again chritians would assasinate him [12:42] Uranta you don't FEEL, that s the catch [12:42] They are the modern day SAduccees and Pharisees [12:42] you have read enough to make that judgement [12:42] Yonick they would? I am not a Fundamentalist, so? [12:42] Uranta if it denies that CHrist was in the flesh God incarnate, its false [12:42] you don't know my heart Ac nor I yours [12:42] Uranta I am judging your doctrine, not your heart, big difference [12:42] I am led to believe we should look for the best in what others believe not judge what we don't agree wiht [12:43] I am about spiritual progression [12:43] I see your dogma and doctrine on my computer screen [12:43] Urantia I am taught to seek the truth wherever it maybe found [12:43] urantia ic [12:43] and those I know who read the UB are engaged in the same thing [12:43] Uranta truth is more important to me than how I feel [12:43] uranta thats nice [12:43] when you sacrifice truth for the sake of unity, you get spiritual disaster, not progression. [12:43] The spirit of truth tells me what is truth and what is false beliefs [12:44] Uranta I am involved in the spiritual life and mystical expereinces as well, but I do not believe just anything just because I FEEL it or LIKE It [12:44] yonick God gave u a brain, don't rely on liuver shivers to tell you what is true [12:44] Yet my tolerance and love for my brothers and sisters of this backward planet accepts your belief system [12:45] nor do I AC [12:45] Our brain is only the physical thing it is our borrowed mind that makes a difference [12:45] yonik no it is logic that makes a difference [12:45] agree yonick [12:46] I will see you all after death and we can debate this some more! [12:46] is is necessary to accept the literal interpretation of the bible to be a Christian? [12:46] Yonick there will be a great chasm between us I fear [12:46] :) [12:46] yonick (yonick@asgaard22.PEAK.ORG) left #Apologetics. [12:46] yonic' [12:47] jhello brother [12:47] Urantian it is necessary to think that what the bible says is true,not necessariuly always literal or physical [12:47] are you still there [12:47] doogie (doogie@ppp-31.wspice.com) joined #apologetics. [12:47] Deanr (deanh@ joined #apologetics. [12:47] brb call [12:47] back [12:47] hey deanr [12:47] hey doogie [12:48] Yo. [12:48] Action: doogie is bjored. [12:48] Mode change '+o Deanr ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [12:48] Mode change '+o sylvrefox ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [12:48] hey all [12:48] hey doogie, lets go ot and do something. =) [12:48] Urantai Jessus said that the Scripture could not be broken, was Jesus incorrect? [12:48] sylvre: Okie. :^) What to do, though? [12:49] gotta run nice to meet you all thanks flor sharing [12:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [12:49] Uranta ok [12:49] i dont know... =) take a walk. =) [12:49] Jesus did not write the scriptures [12:49] go on a picnic. [12:49] new test. written after his death many years [12:49] Urantia no but he said they were true, was he aliar? [12:49] sylvre: Sounds good to me. Uhm. Wanna pick me up, or should I walk to your place? ;^) [12:49] I have to go will come back sometime thanks for sharing [12:49] doogie; ill pick yo up.. =) [12:49] Urantai the Gospels recored his sayings, did he lie? [12:49] Uranta ok later [12:50] sylvre: Coolio. :^) [12:50] =) [12:50] Urantian (russkin@bway-slip108.dynamic.usit.net) left #Apologetics. =============================================================== [14:50] Owen...are you are so quiet because? [14:50] well, I'm interested in religious discussion as a whole, but don't beleive that the apocolypse described in the bible has any relevence [14:51] hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm [14:51] Acolyte: Chilton's book was an application of Jordan's "Interpretive Maximalism" to some materials he had picked up from Bahnsen when the latter taught a verse-by-verse on Revelation. [14:51] Bahnsen points out the the "I.M." hermeneutic, rather than yielding surplus value, undermines clarity in interpretation. [14:51] What does have relevence to you Owen?? [14:51] truth [14:51] Owen: Well, though we are interested in the apocalypse, we are not limited to it. We find the broad issues important, too. :) [14:52] alcuin you mean it undermines bahnsen's theology, which is what it translates to [14:52] What is truth in your book, Owen? [14:52] Alcuin well I prefer Jordan and Sutton over Bahnsen and North anyhow [14:52] yes....that's great owen....Jesus is the Truth, the Life and the Way.... Praise God [14:52] Acolyte: I mean what? [14:52] Alcuin so I prefer Chilton's methodology over bahnsen's presbyterian hermenutic [14:52] Acolyte: "Bahnsen and North" is a strange grouping anyhow. The strongly disagreed, chiefly over Sutton and Jordan! [14:52] The=They [14:53] oh brother!!! [14:53] newsong: there we part company, i don't believe that jesus is "truth" [14:53] Alcuin sure but their exegesis is more Protestant than Catholic, as oppsed to Jordan and Sutton and chilton [14:53] really....interesting thing about the name of Jesus..... [14:53] Acolyte: Chilton's methodology is stream-of-consciousness. Anything goes. Hardly a hermeneutic, as far as I can tell. :) [14:54] so...owen...you are in the system of Cain... [14:54] I really beg to differ,it is hardly stream of consciousness. He connects patterns in biblicla thought for one [14:54] don't believe I'm in any system [14:55] owen hardee har har [14:56] Connects patterns? I'd say he stipulates patterns. He doesn't provide a mechanism for distinguishing the stipulations from actual exegesis. [14:56] you are either in Jesus....or you are not.....that is the illumination about the name of Jesus [14:56] Owen: Not in any system? That sounds somewhat like Descartes's method of doubt. Does that sort of thing click with you? [14:57] Acolyte: Some other time, we might perhaps discuss hermeneutics in a systematic way. We'd probably both benefit from that. [14:57] in the mean time...... [14:57] Owen...here...needs to be snatched from the fire [14:57] Owen: Well, I'm intrigued by your search for truth. [14:57] Owen: If you truly have no system, then how will you know truth when you find it? What will you test it by, to see whether it's truth? [14:57] there is a haunting familiarity about all this, classifications,titles, pigeonholes, lables [14:58] Owen....that is why the name of Jesus is so powerful.....because His names dispells preconceived ideas [14:58] as far as a system of thought, I believe in simplicity "prove it" [14:58] Owen: Yes, those are awful things, aren't they? I certainly don't want anyone confining my freedom by means of labels and pigeonholes and nicely tied-up packages. [14:59] Owen: What is the standard of proof by which you evaluate someone's effort to "prove it"? [14:59] Action: Alcuin tells Owen a parable [14:59] Owen: Let's say you are given a mango-sorting machine. [14:59] Owen: It sorts the good mangos from the bad mangos. [15:00] Owen: (Do you like mangos?) [15:00] not partcularly [15:00] alcuin I am sure St paul gave such a pattern whenhe symbolically interpreted the ot in Gala 4. yeah sure he did. :P~ [15:00] Action: Alcuin waits to find out Owen's fruit-preference, before continuing... [15:00] Lady-Lora (hello@ joined #apologetics. [15:00] Acolyte: If he didn't, we're all in big trouble. [15:00] I'm fond of custard apples [15:01] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [15:01] Owen: Someone points to this shiny machine and tells you it sorts apples. [15:01] Lady-Lora (hello@ left #apologetics. [15:01] Owen: Then you dump a bunch of unsorted apples into the top, and they come pouring out of chutes, some to the left, and some to the right. [15:01] Owen: Now, your goal is to tell whether the machine worked right. [15:02] Owen: So you look at the two groups of apples. [15:02] Owen: But you can't tell whether the machine sorted the good from the bad unless you have *some other means* of determining good apples from bad. [15:02] Owen: But the machine itself is what is supposed to do that. [15:03] Owen: Likewise with truth. You can't tell whether some "proof" or other has worked, unless you have an independent means of verifying its output. [15:03] [15:03] that is the facility of your 'system'....proof....there is plenty of evidence of who Jesus is....but to approach God...we must come by faith [15:04] Owen: So, it's puzzling that you want proof, and that you seek truth, but that you have no system. Sounds like you're in a kind of bind, if that's all true. Don'tcha think so? [15:04] well lets take a look at your parable, if I examine how the machine is put together, i could probably determine whether its is capable of picking the good from the bad (as an engineeri could do that) [15:04] Action: Alcuin takes a bite of custard apples, made from freshly sorted, good apples. [15:05] Owen: An engineer can only analyze the efficacy of a machine if he know what it's supposed to do *and* *how* the machine is supposed to do it. [15:05] You have the what, but not the how. Quandary. [15:05] if i see no evidense that there is an electronic or mechanical methdology for sorting apples, i would surmiose thart it is a fraud [15:06] Owen.....what is the proof that you are *real* as opposed to *bot* [15:06] i'm having an arthritic day, excuse the speeling [15:07] Owen: No problem with the spelling. If you look at the mechanism, you must already know what it takes to sort good from bad apples, in order to tell whether the mechanism will do that. [15:07] Owen: But if you know this, then you *do* have some kind of system after all. [15:07] simple,bots cannot argue, at least at this stage [15:08] Owen: I have to go, now. Real Life beckons. However, I'd encourage you to think about how you personally would be able to tell whether you're in the presence of "a proof" or of "truth" apart from having some knowledge of what such a thing would look like. I wish you well in that pursuit. [15:08] Bye, newsong! [15:09] >wave< [15:09] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line27.cis.yale.edu) left #apologetics. ============================================================= [16:55] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [16:55] Owne what is this grad hypothesis of yours? [16:55] grand even [16:55] Joshua ben Joseph....right...which is to say...(greek) Jesus the son of Joseph who lived in Nazareth [16:55] hehehehe [16:55] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [16:56] arabic is Iben=son of [16:56] Owen: So, there was no Jew named Jesus?? [16:56] Not suprising, there both Smitic languiages [16:57] Owen what is your claim specifically? [16:57] semitic that is [16:57] Acol...don't scare him off now....be nice [16:57] cration: you got it [16:57] newsong HEY I am always NICE! .....we soemtimes [16:57] newsong: Acolyte, scare people off? never. :) [16:57] yea yea yea [16:57] Owen how do you explain the NT documents? [16:58] Owen have you been reading G. A. Wells? [16:59] got to go.....Owen...see you around again? [16:59] not for a long while...as for how do I explain the NT documents, they are the teachings of a Greek jew named Saul of Tarsus [16:59] its been fun newsong, later [16:59] Owen Big CLUE, Paul did not write Matthew, [17:00] Owen Big CLUE #2 Paul did not write Mark [17:00] yes...it has.... [17:00] see you later Acolyte [17:00] no, his disciples did [17:00] Owen: Oh, that is interesting [17:00] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: Leaving [17:00] Big clue for you, neithr did the apostles [17:00] Owen what is your proof that Pauls disciples did so? [17:00] Owen I beg to differ [17:01] that doesn;t suprise me [17:01] Owen there are no NT schoalrs today that take your view, youa re arguing something that all schoalrs reject. [17:01] newsong (newsong@perham-7.dialup.cfa.org) left #apologetics. [17:01] wheather liberal or conservative,m you are in a minority of 1 [17:01] and which scholars would they be? [17:01] Own Try the Jesus Seminar [17:01] Try Crossan and Mack and Funk [17:01] they ALL AGREE JEsus lived [17:01] already have [17:01] fine [17:02] they say Jesus lived [17:02] no one contests that in the field [17:02] and neither am i , so what are you on about [17:02] is it not your position that Jesus did not exist? [17:03] no, it is my position that the jesus descibed in the NT did not live, which crossan etc woul sgree with [17:04] Well Corssan would say cirtain rendtions of JEsus inthe gospels did not exist, but that some of his sayings are preserved there [17:05] but even Crossan and company in the Seminar are a mere smattering of minor scholars in the american scense and do not encompass anywhere near a consensus of NT scholarship today. [17:05] I know, I have argued with some of them [17:05] which is an interesting hypothesis [17:05] what is in interesting hypothesis? [17:06] the problem is with the Seminar's methodology, it is essentially the same as Strauss' was 100 yrs ago [17:06] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [17:06] hello [17:06] Their whole methodology is out of date [17:06] its just that simple [17:06] secondly many of the ppl on the seminar are not schoalrs at all [17:06] common sense is out of date? [17:06] some are movie producers etc [17:07] acolyte: heheheheh We were just talking about this :) [17:07] Owen, do you know the Criteria's they used? [17:07] Owen their assumptions are so uncritical it is funny [17:07] Owen for example, ar eyou familiar with the disimilarity principle that they employ? [17:09] I've heard all this epistemological nonsense before....it doesnpt go anywhere [17:09] this is not epistemological, it is historical [17:10] it is an historical criteria that they employ, are you familair with is or not? [17:10] probably not [17:10] I knkow I'm not :) [17:11] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got netsplit. [17:11] lets cut to the chase shall we? on what is the basis for YOUR belief in the acuracy of the bible? [17:11] Owen if you cannot sybstantiate your claim justa dmit it [17:12] Owen it does not good to shift the burden to me [17:12] Owen who was jesus and what is your methodology and your evidence and your conclusion? [17:12] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) got netsplit. [17:15] Owen (Robert.Pr@tc1-sl45.zenox.com) left irc: Leaving [17:17] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got lost in the net-split. [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_20_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