
[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] <topper> they give credence to "Reason" but then 
poorly use it 
[18:51] <raistlinn> most of them aren't even that intelligent
[18:52] <AKalish> I'm sorry
[18:52] <raistlinn> good evening akalish
[18:52] <raistlinn> sorry for what?
[18:52] <topper> hello akalish
[18:52] <AKalish> this is the apologetics, right?
[18:52] <topper> yes
[18:52] <AKalish> hi topper
[18:52] <raistlinn> yes
[18:52] <AKalish> how are you all?
[18:52] <raistlinn> good, thank you
[18:52] <AKalish> what's the subject?
[18:53] <raistlinn> we were talking about the nature 
of hell
[18:53] <raistlinn> belief
[18:53] <AKalish> yuck, what a nasty place
[18:53] <raistlinn> or rthe rthe nature of belief
[18:53] <topper> very well, thanks
[18:53] <raistlinn> and G.K. Chesterton
[18:53] <raistlinn> nto a good subject
[18:53] <raistlinn> but one that must be understood for 
Christianity to make sense
[18:53] <AKalish> so what is this room about?
[18:54] <raistlinn> do you know what apologetics is?
[18:54] <topper> first time i have been here-when people 
were on
[18:54] <raistlinn> btw, hell is not a common subject
[18:54] <AKalish> i thought i did but i guess i dont!!
[18:54] <raistlinn> we sort of wondered into it
[18:54] <raistlinn> what do you think that it is?
[18:54] <AKalish> no idea
[18:54] <raistlinn> btw, I am not a good example of the 
apologists here
[18:54] <raistlinn> ok
[18:54] <raistlinn> want the definition?
[18:54] <AKalish> sure
[18:55] <raistlinn> apologetics is the rational defense 
of christianity
[18:55] <AKalish> sounds self depreciating
[18:55] <raistlinn> btw, it is not bible bashing
[18:55] <AKalish> what is btw?
[18:55] <raistlinn> it is rational discussion\arguing
[18:55] <raistlinn> btw -> By The Way
[18:55] <raistlinn> irc lingo
[18:56] <raistlinn> you get into the habit of using it 
in order to save time and typing energy
[18:56] <AKalish> oh.  I am ignorant, but I learn!!
[18:56] <AKalish> are you male or f and age, rais...
[18:56] <raistlinn> are you a christian, an atheist, 
or an agnostic
[18:56] <raistlinn> M
[18:56] <raistlinn> or something else
[18:56] <raistlinn> ?
[18:56] <topper> by the way
[18:56] <topper> cool huh
[18:56] <topper> then you are not ignorant
[18:56] <AKalish> christian basically, but not heavily, 
I am female and 37
[18:56] <raistlinn> what sort of christianity?
[18:57] <raistlinn> evangelical?
[18:57] <raistlinn> experiential
[18:57] <topper> what is heavily christian-i didnt realize 
weihgt was involved
[18:57] <raistlinn> catholic?
[18:57] <raistlinn> calvanistic?
[18:57] <raistlinn> lutheran?
[18:57] <raistlinn> Topper: you mean The weight of Glory?
[18:57] <AKalish> i guess my basic beliefs are born again
[18:57] <raistlinn> ah
[18:57] <topper> thank you 
[18:57] <raistlinn> hm
[18:57] <AKalish> heavily meaning not reaaaallly into 
it
[18:57] <raistlinn> oh
[18:57] <raistlinn> sorry
[18:57] <topper> i was just kidding-iam sorry
[18:57] <AKalish> you , rais and topper
[18:58] <raistlinn> yes?
[18:58] <topper> yes
[18:58] <AKalish> what denomination
[18:58] <raistlinn> I am basically catholic
[18:58] <topper> it is difficult to say
[18:58] <AKalish> my kids go to catholic school
[18:58] <raistlinn> (tehnically orthodox - it is a long 
story)
[18:59] <AKalish> okay
[18:59] <AKalish> apolo doesn't say much
[18:59] <topper> he is a bot
[18:59] <AKalish> where are you guys?
[18:59] <topper> maryland
[18:59] <AKalish> I am in NY
[19:00] <AKalish> married?
[19:00] <topper> yes
[19:00] <raistlinn> NY
[19:00] <raistlinn> topper: you are in college AND married?
[19:00] <AKalish> alright rais!! where , near Roch?
[19:00] <raistlinn> LI
[19:00] <raistlinn> a little further south
[19:00] <AKalish> olean???
[19:01] <raistlinn> olean?
[19:01] <raistlinn> LI -> Long Islan
[19:01] <topper> and work full time
[19:01] <topper> that is why i cant wait to read chesterton 
after i graduate
[19:01] <AKalish> okayyyy, my dad grew upin Brooklyn
[19:01] <raistlinn> Ak: are you using your husband's\son's 
account to get onto the internet?
[19:01] <topper> one of our pastors is from brooklyn-do 
i fit in now
[19:02] <AKalish> gee, how could you tell, it's hubby!!
[19:02] <AKalish> yes, you always did topper
[19:02] <topper> i am very sarcasitc, but dont mean anything
[19:02] <topper> brb
[19:02] <AKalish> me too topper, its a defence mech...
[19:02] <raistlinn> I did a whois
[19:03] <raistlinn> there are not many women by the name 
of andy
[19:03] <raistlinn> since you seem new to irc, I concluded 
that you were borrowing someone's account
[19:03] <AKalish> ho de har, but there is a hubby in 
this house named andy
[19:03] <raistlinn> presumably a son\husbands
[19:03] <raistlinn> ah
[19:03] <raistlinn> what do you believe in?
[19:03] <raistlinn> religiously, I mean
[19:04] <AKalish> that God created , and i have changed 
my beliefs on alot of the rest
[19:04] <raistlinn> what about Jesus?
[19:04] <raistlinn> do you believe in the Son of God 
thing?
[19:04] <raistlinn> (I do)
[19:04] <AKalish> yes, from what i remember
[19:04] <raistlinn> using the terms metaphorically, of 
course
[19:05] <raistlinn> from what you remember?
[19:05] <AKalish> stuff like he's with us all the time, 
died for us...
[19:05] <topper> im back
[19:05] <topper> like?
[19:05] <topper> i do too
[19:05] <topper> are you a member of a local church akalish
[19:05] <AKalish> no
[19:06] <AKalish> what i have trouble with is why things 
are allowed to happen down here
[19:06] <topper> is there any particular reason why not?
[19:06] <raistlinn> Ak: ah, perhaps I might be able to 
help a little
[19:06] <topper> like what?
[19:06] <AKalish> if he is supposed to love us then we 
should be taken care of
[19:06] <raistlinn> Ak: may I recommend a book, first?
[19:06] <AKalish> surely
[19:07] <raistlinn> Ak: The PRoblem of Pain, by C.S. 
Lewis
[19:07] <raistlinn> Ak: it is a GOOD book
[19:07] <raistlinn> Lewis is a good author
[19:07] <raistlinn> he has a great style
[19:07] <raistlinn> easy to read
[19:07] <raistlinn> interesting
[19:07] <raistlinn> almost conversational
[19:07] <AKalish> got it rais, thanks
[19:07] <raistlinn> and lewis has no airs about him
[19:07] <raistlinn> it is very good
[19:07] <raistlinn> but to tell you knwo
[19:07] <raistlinn> first: do you believe in free will?
[19:07] <AKalish> explain...
[19:08] <raistlinn> (btw, if oyu wish, I can show you 
how that is not contradictory to Go dbeing able to 
see the future)
[19:08] <topper> excellent book
[19:08] <AKalish> go ahead...
[19:08] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> which, the problem of pain or the 
problem of choice?
[19:09] Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-54.ppp.hooked.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:09] <Fatjac> Hi, you'all!
[19:09] <AKalish> aborted babies dont have choices
[19:09] <raistlinn> hi fatjac
[19:09] <AKalish> hi fatjac!
[19:09] CTCP SOUND: arethere.wav You there??? from 
Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-54.ppp.hooked.net) to #apologetics
[19:09] <topper> hey fat
[19:09] <raistlinn> 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] <AKalish> and?
[19:09] Action: raistlinn reponds with a large howdy 
back to the fat gentleman bearing the appelation "jac" 
in the corner
[19:10] <Fatjac> Wow! how do you make those long pop-ups 
so quickly?
[19:10] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Fatjac: after about 5-6 years of 
using computers, I can almost touch type
[19:10] <AKalish> pain
[19:11] <raistlinn> Ak: ok
[19:11] <AKalish> I keep wanting to call you raisin!
[19:11] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> :-)
[19:11] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> I have plenty of names, that would 
be just one more
[19:11] <raistlinn> hi cass
[19:12] <AKalish> yes
[19:12] <raistlinn> ok
[19:12] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> )
[19:12] <AKalish> david cassidy is here!!!
[19:13] <AKalish> yes
[19:13] <raistlinn> ok
[19:14] <raistlinn> Since we have free will, and we are 
imperfect, then we are going to make bad choices, correct?
[19:14] <Cassidy_> greetings to everyone!!
[19:14] <topper> that is a bad joke
[19:14] <topper> brb
[19:14] <AKalish> what do you mean by bad choices
[19:14] <Cassidy_> toppper...I must of missed the joke.....
[19:14] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> bye topper, hi topper
[19:15] <raistlinn> that was fast
[19:15] <raistlinn> :-)
[19:15] <Cassidy_> raist...do you mind giving me a topic 
name to advertise the channel?
[19:15] <raistlinn> Cas: how about; "Apologetics: rational 
discussions of Christianity (no bible bashing)"
[19:15] <Cassidy_> hello, Fat (you dont mind if I call 
you fat?) :-)
[19:16] <raistlinn> Ak?
[19:16] Action: topper says hello all
[19:16] <Cassidy_> fine.
[19:16] <Fatjac> Why should you be any different?
[19:16] <AKalish> then i don't make a lot of bad choices, 
what are you gettin at?
[19:16] <AKalish> yes rais
[19:17] <AKalish> who are you talking to fat?
[19:17] <raistlinn> 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] <Fatjac> HUh?
[19:17] <AKalish> true rais......
[19:18] <raistlinn> Ak: If God is going to respect our 
free will, how would he prevent it
[19:18] <raistlinn> Ak: also. there is another aspect.
[19:18] <raistlinn> Ak: you are assuming that all pain\suffering 
is bad
[19:18] <AKalish> you raise a good point
[19:18] <AKalish> yes. pain and suffering iiisss bad
[19:18] <raistlinn> 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] <topper> He uses it
[19:19] <AKalish> your point?
[19:19] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Ak: be patient
[19:19] <raistlinn> Ak: he turns it aroun
[19:19] <raistlinn> d
[19:19] <Fatjac> 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] <raistlinn> Ak: works for charities
[19:19] <raistlinn> Ak: starts to love people
[19:19] <raistlinn> etc.
[19:20] <Cassidy_> 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] <AKalish> what???
[19:20] <raistlinn> Ak: there are plenty of examples 
that I can offer where you can clearly see that pain 
and suffering help people
[19:20] <topper> fatjak: because he sees the end product 
of what the pain orchestrates
[19:20] <raistlinn> Ak: pain is real, it is violent, 
and it is all comsuming
[19:20] <AKalish> never helped me onnnnneeee bit!!!
[19:20] <raistlinn> Ak: it has a tendency to pull us 
away from fake Gods that we set up
[19:20] <raistlinn> Ak: how are you so sure?
[19:21] <raistlinn> Ak: note: pain and suffering can 
also be taken badly by the person in question and go 
to bad ends
[19:21] <raistlinn> Ak: are you a mother?
[19:21] <Fatjac> topper:Kind of like mom, when you got 
your shots.
[19:21] <AKalish> because I feel i am sadder than I would 
have been otherwise
[19:21] <topper> bingo
[19:21] <AKalish> yes, three kids
[19:22] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Ak: but to borrow an example that 
was just mentioned, you have given your children shots, 
correct
[19:22] <raistlinn> Ak: and made them take mdeicine when 
they are sick, correct?
[19:22] <AKalish> yes....
[19:22] <raistlinn> Ak: and punished them, in some form, 
when they were bad, correct?
[19:23] <AKalish> your point?
[19:23] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Ak: ayou love your children, correct?
[19:23] <raistlinn> (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] <AKalish> what do you mean small price to pay?
[19:23] <raistlinn> Ak: well, hold on one seconds
[19:23] <raistlinn> decond
[19:23] <raistlinn> second
[19:23] <raistlinn> I eman
[19:24] <Fatjac> AK: The immediate pain of the shot compared 
to immunity from samll pox.
[19:24] <raistlinn> Ak: you love your childrenb very 
much, correct?
[19:24] <AKalish> yes, 
[19:24] <raistlinn> 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] <Fatjac> 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] <raistlinn> Fat: you row?
[19:25] <AKalish> IIII can't even get an oar in!!
[19:25] <Cassidy_> sorry people...my servers doin funky 
things...........
[19:25] <Fatjac> Rais:She ahs to get the point now.
[19:25] <raistlinn> Fat: I jsut want ot make sure
[19:25] <raistlinn> Ak: you do those things, correct?
[19:25] Action: raistlinn mentions that he rows (sweeps 
and sculls)
[19:26] <AKalish> listen, i am feeling battered by you, 
 i believe i will go... see ya
[19:26] <topper> 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] <raistlinn> how do you get apolobot to quote 
scripture?
[19:26] <topper> John 1 1
[19:27] <Fatjac> apolobot quotes scripture???
[19:27] <Cassidy_> yes, he does.
[19:27] <topper> cool huh
[19:28] <Cassidy_> syntax: @@@ [abbrv. book] [chap.] 
[verse]
[19:28] <Cassidy_> Who are the Christians here? Where 
are you all from?
[19:28] <Fatjac> I thought he was just a bot.
[19:28] <topper> i think you needed that one Raisna
[19:29] <raistlinn> top: which one?
[19:29] <topper> the one i just quoted eph 1 5
[19:29] <Fatjac> He I'm impressed.
[19:30] <raistlinn> ops
[19:30] <raistlinn> oops
[19:30] <raistlinn> does it work in the middle? @@@ john 
1:11
[19:31] <raistlinn> can it quote multiple verses
[19:31] <raistlinn> ah, that's it
[19:31] <raistlinn> topp: why did I need that?
[19:32] <Cassidy_> only 2 verses...exp: John 1 1 2
[19:32] <raistlinn> ugh
[19:32] <raistlinn> this thing doesn't have a very good 
translation
[19:33] <raistlinn> not too bad, though
[19:33] <Cassidy_> KJV...but its better than none at 
all.
[19:33] <Cassidy_> [[john 1 1
[19:33] <Cassidy_> nope...
[19:33] <raistlinn> Gen 2: 15
[19:34] <raistlinn> GE 2:1
[19:35] <raistlinn> Ge 2: 2 3
[19:35] <Fatjac> Raist:I think you were hitting poor 
AK over the head with a club.
[19:35] <raistlinn> Fat: I didn't mean to
[19:36] <raistlinn> Fat: and it didn't seem like that 
to me
[19:36] <Fatjac> I know.
[19:36] anselm (serenity@slip105.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:36] <raistlinn> hm
[19:36] <anselm> greetings
[19:36] <raistlinn> hi ans
[19:36] <Cassidy_> greetings anselm
[19:37] <anselm> what grotesque imagery
[19:37] <raistlinn> anslem: are you an atheist?
[19:37] <raistlinn> ha!
[19:37] <raistlinn> it is there, too
[19:37] <raistlinn> :-)
[19:37] <raistlinn> sorry, a little side note
[19:38] <raistlinn> look at that and now look a this
[19:38] <topper> 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] <Fatjac> I'm usibg a Douay and I lost averse 
there??
[19:39] <Fatjac> averse=a verse
[19:39] <Fatjac> anselm:You think it was imagery??? Read 
on.
[19:39] <Fatjac> Anselm; You there??
[19:39] <raistlinn> ok
[19:39] <anselm> yes
[19:39] <raistlinn> now everyone
[19:40] <raistlinn> please look at these to verses
[19:40] <anselm> sorry. I got some mail I had to look 
at
[19:40] <Fatjac> Do you have a bible handy to read the 
rest of that passage?
[19:40] <raistlinn> look at the first, where is the tree 
of knowledge of good an evil?
[19:40] <raistlinn> Fatjac: please address your comments, 
was that to me?
[19:41] <raistlinn> please everyone respond to this one
[19:41] Action: raistlinn asks where the tree of the 
knowledge of Good and evil is
[19:41] <raistlinn> 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] <Fatjac> Common Raist, read on your own time.
[19:41] <Fatjac> That was to anselm.
[19:42] <raistlinn> and God simply said not to eat of 
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
[19:42] <anselm> just a sec
[19:42] <raistlinn> Conclusion: Eve God it wrong, she 
mixed up what God said
[19:42] <Cassidy_> its in our fallen natures.....
[19:42] <raistlinn> Question: is it possible that sin 
can result from not knowing God's commandments?
[19:42] <raistlinn> interesting, no?
[19:42] <anselm> OK now, i have to scroll for a moment
[19:42] <Fatjac> raist:Anslem thought john 6:55 was gross 
imagery.
[19:42] <anselm> not an atheist, a deist.
[19:43] <raistlinn> Fat: hm
[19:43] <anselm> that was to raistlinn
[19:43] <raistlinn> Anslem: what sort of a deist?
[19:43] <raistlinn> Ans: thanks
[19:44] <Fatjac> raist:Formal sin certainly, personal 
sin, no.
[19:44] <anselm> here's a macro definition I whipped 
up for my #deism...
[19:44] <anselm> Deism is a belief in a loving creator, 
an ultimate & eternal being, who is omnipresent & omniscient 
but *not* omnipotent.
[19:44] <anselm> 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] <anselm> that's my take on it, anyway.
[19:45] <Fatjac> anselm:Contradiction! How can a being 
be omnipresent and omniscient without being omnipotent.
[19:46] <anselm> However, even when I was a christian, 
I still thought that imagery was grotesque,.
[19:46] <Fatjac> anselm:If you're not christian there's 
no point in discussing john 6 etc.
[19:47] <Fatjac> Anselm:or the bible for that matter.
[19:47] <anselm> Fatjac: I see no contradiction.
[19:47] <Cassidy_> 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] <anselm> 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] <raistlinn> Fatjac: perpersonal sin: not knowing 
what is right\wrong, what is lving, etc. what is best 
ofr a person, etc.
[19:49] <Cassidy_> anselm....is it really that odd? 
[19:49] <Fatjac> anselm:If you're a non-believer what's 
the point. It's like discussing the nature of God with 
an ahteist.
[19:49] <anselm> Then how wd a xian hope to ever convert 
an atheist, of even a deist?
[19:49] <Fatjac> raist:No, I would define personal sin 
as when you do know what's right but don't do it.
[19:50] <Cassidy_> Fat...exactly. where their is disagreement 
on the basic axioms, the discussion ought not progress.
[19:50] <raistlinn> 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] <Fatjac> Rais:Formal sin as when you don't know 
something is a sin and so it.
[19:50] <anselm> 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] <raistlinn> Fat: ah, ok
[19:50] <raistlinn> Anslem: God can't be omnipotent for 
free will to exist?
[19:51] <Cassidy_> anselm....by arguing the QUESTION 
of Gods existance...NOT the nature of God...as if both 
parties share that assumption!!
[19:51] <anselm> 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] <Fatjac> anselm:What do ytou think of free will 
as an answer to the problem?
[19:51] <raistlinn> Anslem: hjow about God is omnipotent 
but made us with free will and refrains from controling 
it out of love?
[19:52] <Cassidy_> anselm....how did you arrive at your 
Deism?
[19:52] <raistlinn> Anslem: it is simply difficult to 
deal with those all of the time who wish not to believe 
you
[19:52] <raistlinn> Anslem: trying to convince people 
against there will is a tiring thing
[19:52] <anselm> 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] <Fatjac> raist: Those people who agree with us 
are much nicer, aren't they?<G>
[19:53] <Fatjac> anselm:Would you define kenosis for 
me?
[19:54] <raistlinn> 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] <anselm> 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] <raistlinn> Fat: indeed it is, apologetics is 
mostly functional only in convincing those who want 
to believe but have some cognitive impediments
[19:54] <raistlinn> or rather intellectual impediments
[19:55] <Cassidy_> anselm....have you  read Alvin Plantinga 
on The problem of Evil?
[19:55] <raistlinn> Naslem: which christian doctines 
do you find it impossible to morally approve of?
[19:55] <Fatjac> raist:It helps if you use multi\syllabic 
words sparingly.
[19:55] <raistlinn> Fat: but it is so booring
[19:56] <anselm> 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] <Fatjac> raist:Best to be understood. I'm still 
waiting to find out what kenosis is.
[19:56] <Cassidy_> Anselm...it's in his work "God, Freedom 
and Evil"...I think you would be impressed....
[19:57] <Fatjac> anselm:twice now you have inferred God 
mught change His mind.  That doesn't compute in an 
omniscientt being>
[19:57] <anselm> Fatjac: Kenosis is the self-emptying 
of the creator out of love so as to create beings in 
its image.
[19:58] <Cassidy_> anselm...why this inability in God? 
where lies the problem of involvement in creation?
[19:58] <anselm> I read Plantinga, yes.
[19:58] <raistlinn> Fat: there are so few monosyllabic 
words, my speah would ge monotonous
[19:58] <raistlinn> 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] <Fatjac> Raist:I'm getting to like you more nad 
more. Your typing is getting as band as mine.
[19:59] <raistlinn> Fat: :-)
[19:59] <anselm> 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] <Cassidy_> Anselm...well? what do you think about 
his rendering of the pr. of Evil...or his ver of the 
Onto. arg.?
[19:59] <raistlinn> Anslem: what do you mean?
[19:59] <raistlinn> Anslem: if a man is going to kill 
himslef, I am morally obliged to stop him?
[19:59] <anselm> I agree w/ the ontic argument, tho' 
Hartshorne deals with it better, IMO, but his take 
on evil I found almost offensive.
[19:59] <raistlinn> Anslem: and then at every opportunity, 
he tries
[20:00] <raistlinn> Anslem: and he won't listen to anything
[20:00] <raistlinn> Anslem: eventually, he is not alive 
anyhow
[20:00] <raistlinn> Anslem: but that is a bad example
[20:00] <Fatjac> raist:Your not trying to insert God 
into time?
[20:00] <anselm> His whole approach to philosophy, his 
sharp distinction twixt "pastoral" & "philosophical" concerns 
is alien & even repugnant to me.
[20:00] <Fatjac> tempus fugit
[20:00] <Fatjac> Well, it's been fun but I got to go.
[20:00] <Fatjac> It's 'Howdy-Doody' time. My gin and 
tonic are calling. Bye.
[20:00] <raistlinn> Anslem: btw, has it never occured 
to you that pain and suffering can be beneficial to 
the sufferer?
[20:00] <raistlinn> Fat: no, trying to make sure that 
he is out of time
[20:01] <raistlinn> Ans?
[20:01] <anselm> 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] <raistlinn> Anslem: you are correct
[20:01] <raistlinn> Anslem: but anyhow, do you believe 
that God is linearly temporal or a-linearly temporal?>
[20:02] <raistlinn> I dislike lag
[20:02] <anselm> raistlinn: god, IMO, is temporal in 
some sense; I don't believe in a *living* being *outside* 
time.
[20:02] <raistlinn> Anslem: hm, so time is not a creation?
[20:03] <raistlinn> Anslem: but time and space are linked, 
they are inseparable
[20:03] <raistlinn> Anslem: thus, if space was created, 
time must have been as well
[20:03] <anselm> 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] <raistlinn> Anslem: do you believe God to be 
corporeal?
[20:03] <raistlinn> Anslem: are you so sure?
[20:03] <anselm> Not corporeal, no. The temporal thing 
I'm still working thru.
[20:03] <Cassidy_> 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] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Anslem: well, without corporality, 
linear temporality makes no sense
[20:04] <raistlinn> Anslem: time is the changing of matter
[20:04] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial48.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[20:04] <raistlinn> Anslem: in a linear sequence
[20:04] <raistlinn> Prof!!!]
[20:04] <anselm> 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] <Cassidy_> greetings prof.
[20:05] <ProfG> hiya  :-)
[20:05] <ProfG> raistlinn - hiya!
[20:05] <raistlinn> 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] <anselm> raist: If *all* suffering is necessary, 
then I can't see how anything ultimately matters.
[20:06] <raistlinn> Anslem: why?
[20:06] <raistlinn> Anslem: the idea is to move people 
to a state of perfection in which n suffering is necessary
[20:06] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Anslem: haven't you ever seen the 
people who wish to be angry?
[20:07] <anselm> I fail to see why without corporality, 
linear temporality makes no sense
[20:07] <raistlinn> Anslem: or the mother who refuses 
to stop greiving for her lost son?
[20:07] <anselm> why shd I define time as changing of 
matter
[20:07] <raistlinn> Anslem: wihtout matter, how can you 
be linearly temporal?  linear temporality is the chaning 
of corporeal things
[20:07] <anselm> raist: who are these ppl wishing to 
be angry?
[20:07] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Anslem: have you never been angry 
at someone?
[20:08] <raistlinn> Anslem: and it felt in some way good?
[20:08] <raistlinn> 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] <ProfG> lol
[20:09] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> :-)
[20:09] <raistlinn> 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] <ProfG> heheheh
[20:09] <raistlinn> Anslem: ?
[20:09] <ProfG> not boring, just gotta get the logs  
  :-)
[20:09] <ProfG> re cassidy
[20:09] <anselm> OK, raistlinn, of course I've gotten 
angry & swore at ppl for insufficient reason. The point 
being?
[20:10] <Cassidy_> I cant seem to stay on today (sheeesh!)
[20:10] <Cassidy_>  thank you.
[20:10] <anselm> I'm having trouble keeping up with all 
the comments (if I seem slow)
[20:10] <raistlinn> Anslem: you chose to do that, when 
you would have been happier if you did something more 
loving
[20:11] <ProfG> anselm: your nick always confuses me. 
Acolyte used to use the nick St_Anselm or Anselm when 
we first met.
[20:11] <raistlinn> Anslem: that suffering (and being 
angry is unpleasant) was your choice
[20:11] <anselm> 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] <Cassidy_> Prof...I dont think the two have ever 
met! 
[20:11] <anselm> A book I did derive comfort from was 
Kushner's *When Bad Things Happen to Good People*.
[20:11] <ProfG> Plantinga rocks  :-)
[20:11] <Cassidy_> ooooof
[20:12] <anselm> ProfG: Do a whois on me
[20:12] <ProfG> Cassidy: I'm fairly certain acolyte met 
anselm here
[20:12] <anselm> I've spoken to Acolyte a few times.
[20:12] <Cassidy_> I think prof already did...
[20:12] <Cassidy_> oh..
[20:12] <raistlinn> 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] <ProfG> yeah, /whois, so?
[20:12] <raistlinn> world is ...
[20:12] <raistlinn> sorry for the mistype
[20:12] <anselm> Yes, suffering *can* be a choice; the 
holocaust was not a choice for its victims.
[20:13] <anselm> So, I'm not Acolyte, that's all I intended.
[20:13] <ProfG> doh
[20:13] <ProfG> :-)
[20:13] <raistlinn> 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] <Cassidy_> "what we have here is a failure to 
communicate..."
[20:14] <Cassidy_> Aco wouldn't be caught dead with "anselm" 
uncapitolized......
[20:14] <ProfG> LOL
[20:14] <Cassidy_> ...or without the prefix "saint"
[20:14] Action: anselm laughs
[20:14] <raistlinn> 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] <Cassidy_> hehehe
[20:14] Action: raistlinn wonders at what is anslem 
laughing
[20:14] <anselm> Cassidy's joke
[20:14] Nick change: ProfG -> St_Acolyt
[20:14] <raistlinn> ok, at least it is not what I am 
saying
[20:14] <raistlinn> :-)
[20:14] <Cassidy_> haha
[20:14] <raistlinn> Anslem: do you follow?
[20:15] <St_Acolyt> heheh
[20:15] Nick change: St_Acolyt -> ProfG
[20:15] <anselm> certainly not,I'm far too civil for 
that  ;-)
[20:15] <raistlinn> far to civil for what?
[20:15] <anselm> I follow, but I'm only (possibly) disagreeing 
w/ the extreme of trying to explain *all* evil & suffereing 
that way.
[20:16] <anselm> to laugh at ppl's serious points, raistlinn.
[20:16] <raistlinn> ah
[20:16] <raistlinn> thank you
[20:16] <raistlinn>  anyhow
[20:16] <raistlinn> Anslem: how would you explain the 
rest?
[20:17] <anselm> Alas, I wd like to try, but I must sign 
off for a couple hours. I'll drop in later.
[20:17] <anselm> I've enjoyed the discussion thus far.
[20:17] <anselm> adieu for now.
[20:17] <raistlinn> anslem: raistlinn@htp.net
[20:18] <raistlinn> email me
[20:18] <anselm> OK
[20:18] <raistlinn> if you like
[20:18] <anselm> 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] <Cassidy_> ahhh....activity!
[20:45] <ProfG> red is BACK  :-)
[20:46] <RedCloud> got cut off
[20:46] <Cassidy_> red! server giving you greif?
[20:46] <RedCloud> is there a specific topic here?
[20:46] Cannibal (philcs@slip1.vianet.net.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:46] <ProfG> hiya canb
[20:46] <Cassidy_> so Red...do tell. Do we hail you as 
a brother or welcome you as an unbelieveig friend?
[20:47] <Cassidy_> hey cann
[20:47] <RedCloud> cassidy: neither.
[20:47] <Cannibal> hi Cassidy_ :)
[20:48] <Cassidy_> well...I guess you got a point, huh? 
friend is a little strong for most IRC aquainences......
[20:48] <RedCloud> cassidy: to elaborate, i'm not christian, 
but i do believe in God
[20:48] <Cassidy_> good. That is helpful information.
[20:49] <RedCloud> and you?
[20:49] <Cassidy_> well...you boys/girls will soon have 
to play without cass....it is, after all, Maunday Thirsday.
[20:49] <Cassidy_> Christian.
[20:49] <Cassidy_> Thursday.
[20:49] <RedCloud> cassidy: what is this about a new 
gospel of thomas? When was this discovered?
[20:50] <Cassidy_> Red...perhaps you could tell me. Its 
news here.....
[20:51] <Cassidy_> (red..I knew there was a reason you 
sat there sooo quietly....you sly dog!)
[20:51] <RedCloud> cassidy: I dont know, that's why I'm 
asking! There's front page material on Jesus on Time 
and Newsweek
[20:51] <ProfG> it's Easter after all
[20:52] <RedCloud> PRofg: that explains it
[20:52] <Cassidy_> I seriously, dont know either. What 
do they suggest are the implications of this discovery?
[20:52] <RedCloud> cassidy: I havent read the whole thing 
yet.
[20:53] <RedCloud> 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] <Cassidy_> hmmmm....let us know. Any such discovery 
is of interest to me.
[20:53] <ProfG> You mean the "Jesus Seminar"?
[20:53] <ProfG> what a LARK
[20:54] <RedCloud> profg: yes..I think that's what it 
is
[20:54] <Cassidy_> Red...yeah...They've been around for 
awhile.
[20:54] <ProfG> those guys are IDIOTS - and I say that 
academically speaking
[20:54] <ProfG> not disparagingly
[20:55] <Cassidy_> yes. It has benn widely agreed that 
their approach leaves much to be desired.
[20:55] <RedCloud> 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] <Cassidy_> 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] <RedCloud> cassidy: but for arguments sake, lets 
say that it is proven wrong. What of your faith then?
[20:59] <ProfG> the Christian faith is based on the Bible 
being TRUE, Red, not on blind adherence to something 
we are not sure of
[20:59] <Cassidy_> 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] <RedCloud> cassidy: I am referring to the bible
[21:00] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[21:00] <ProfG> hi bawn
[21:00] musha (jmartens@dyn-2.netnation.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[21:00] <Bawn> hiya prof
[21:01] <musha> hi
[21:01] <ProfG> hi musha
[21:01] <musha> hi ProfG
[21:01] <musha> is anyone talking about anything in particular 
today?
[21:01] <Cassidy_> 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] <RedCloud> cassidy: but u didnt answer my previous 
question "for arguments sake..."
[21:02] <ProfG> right now, the veracity of the Bible, 
mushq
[21:02] <musha> ok
[21:02] <RedCloud> cassidy: but for arguments sake, lets 
say that it is proven wrong. What of your faith then?
[21:02] <musha> what does veracity mean?
[21:03] <Bawn> that the bible is proven wrong?
[21:03] <ProfG> 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] <Cassidy_> Red...for arguments sake? fine. No 
bible...no Christianity. non-Christian Theism or Deism.
[21:03] <ProfG> veracity = truth
[21:03] Action: Bawn would still believe in God..... 
 a God and creator.
[21:03] <musha> thanks
[21:04] <raistlinn> 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] <musha> i waould alway doubt such "proff" of the 
error of the bible
[21:04] <raistlinn> Red: question: how do you propose 
that large parts of the bible will be disproved?
[21:04] <RedCloud> 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] <raistlinn> Red: you would need some type of 
more reliable documents contradicting it
[21:05] <Bawn> hmm but the belief isnt based merely on 
the bible...  (merely?) 
[21:05] <raistlinn> Red: and you suppose that they will 
be produced?
[21:05] <raistlinn> Red: and besides, what is it that 
you beleive in?
[21:05] <RedCloud> raist: thats not the point I'm trying 
to make
[21:05] <Bawn> I mean there were christians around before 
the bible was in print
[21:05] <ProfG> raistlinn: in a way. Atheism ultimately 
leads to nihilism, and presups attempt to show such
[21:05] <Cassidy_> 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] <raistlinn> Red: are you a christian (if so, 
my apologies, I misread the log)
[21:06] <Cassidy_> reasonable...(perhaps I could type 
in one of those possible worlds, eh?)
[21:06] <RedCloud> 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] <Cassidy_> BRB...
[21:06] <Cassidy_> +-26/m calif...
[21:07] <RedCloud> raist: no I am not.
[21:07] <raistlinn> Red: ok, then what are you?
[21:07] <raistlinn> Prof: btw, which guys are idiots?
[21:07] lilax (jabradl@cello.gina.calstate.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:07] <ProfG> raist: the Jesus Seminar dudes and dudettes
[21:07] <raistlinn> you said so ina professional context
[21:07] Nick change: lilax -> lilacs
[21:07] <Bawn> 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] <RedCloud> raist: does it matter what I am? isnt 
this channel to talk about christianity? Suffice to 
say that I believe in God
[21:08] <ProfG> hi lilax
[21:08] <raistlinn> hi lilacs
[21:08] <Bawn> hey lilacs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[21:08] <lilacs> hi :)
[21:08] <Cassidy_> 	   Red....do you suppose I HAVEN'T 
thought about it every day for 3/4 of a decade? thenthink 
again.
[21:08] <Bawn> no cass didnt you know?  Christians dont 
think.. they blindly follow :)
[21:08] <raistlinn> 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] <Cassidy_> ;)
[21:08] <RedCloud> 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] <raistlinn> I like the book better, myself
[21:09] <Bawn> RedCloud  then I doubt their christianity
[21:09] <musha> hey Red , Who do you think Jesus was?
[21:09] <Cassidy_> Thats why most of the worlds greatest 
thinkers have been Christians.
[21:09] <RedCloud> raist: why do you keep coming to what 
i believe in? All I asked, or put forward was a simple 
question
[21:09] <Bawn> Jesus said the way to theFather was through 
Him
[21:10] <Bawn> not a book.   and btw  what is your point? 
 I came in late and have no idea what I am interrupting.
[21:10] <RedCloud> musha: what does it matter if I told 
you my opinion? 
[21:10] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Red: what is your question, could 
you please restate it
[21:10] <RedCloud> Bawn: I think you got my point, and 
answered it quite admirably!
[21:10] <Bawn> hehe  
[21:11] <Bawn> uh oh
[21:11] <raistlinn> uh oh what?
[21:11] <Bawn> well usually if someone thinks I make 
sense.. I find oput later that I am wrong
[21:11] <RedCloud> 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] <raistlinn> :-)
[21:11] <Bawn> :)
[21:11] <lilacs> hehehe
[21:11] Action: lilacs thinks Bawn is funny
[21:11] <musha> Red: i'd be interested in your opinion 
that is why it matters to me
[21:12] <Cassidy_> 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] <raistlinn> Red: if it is proven that Christ 
was not the Son of God?  Then chrsitianity would disintegrate
[21:12] <musha> i'm interested in oter people and their 
opinions
[21:12] <raistlinn> Red: what would happen if it were 
proven that gravity doesn't realy exist? what would 
happen to modern physics?
[21:12] <musha> at this point in time i'm interested 
in yours Red
[21:12] <Bawn> 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] <RedCloud> rais: I dont entirely agree. I think 
Christianity might go in different directions. Perhaps 
refined and altered somewhere, but not disintegrate.
[21:13] <Bawn> and wait for the messiah :)
[21:13] <lilacs> definitely disintegrate, RedCloud
[21:13] <raistlinn> Red: if it was found that it was 
based upon a lie, it woulnd't fall apart?
[21:14] <raistlinn> Bawn: that is probably what I would 
do
[21:14] musha (jmartens@dyn-2.netnation.com) left #Apologetics.
[21:14] <RedCloud> raist: Well, it depends on how big 
of a lie.
[21:14] raistlinn (Raistlinn@tower.htp.com) got netsplit.
[21:14] <Bawn> 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] <lilacs> bbl
[21:15] lilacs (jabradl@cello.gina.calstate.edu) left 
#apologetics.
[21:15] <ProfG> netsplit
[21:15] <Bawn> c ya
[21:15] <RedCloud> the net has split!
[21:15] <ProfG> brb
[21:15] <Cassidy_> 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@199.171.4.242) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:16] <algaekill> interesting
[21:16] <algaekill> btw, I am raistlin
[21:16] <algaekill> server crashed on me
[21:16] <algaekill> anyhow
[21:16] <Bawn> Cassidy  wouldnt be a christian..  but 
would you still believe in God?
[21:16] <algaekill> Red: what did you say?
[21:16] <Bawn> algae :)
[21:16] <RedCloud>  raist: Well, it depends on how big 
of a lie.
[21:16] <Cassidy_> Bawn....yes. The Arguments for his 
existance are too compelling to reject God.
[21:17] <Bawn> k
[21:17] <Bawn> :)
[21:17] <RedCloud> cassidy: but, must u be a christian 
in order to believe in God?
[21:17] <algaekill> I am lagged
[21:17] <Cassidy_> Red...of course not!
[21:17] <Bawn> RedClkoud you must be a follower of Christ 
in order to be in relatinon with God
[21:17] algaekill (Raistlinn@199.171.4.242) left irc: 
Read error to algaekill[199.171.4.242]: Connection 
reset by peer
[21:17] <Bawn> but not to believe in the existence of 
a higher being.. or even the God of Abraham
[21:18] <RedCloud> bawn: so, then what about those other 
3.5 billion (or so) do they not have a relationship 
with God?
[21:18] <Bawn> RedCloud what about them?
[21:18] <Bawn> evidently not RedCloud
[21:18] <RedCloud> poor algae...its netsplitsville
[21:18] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:18] <Bawn> though they will be given the opportunity 
and I will not discuss predestination/free will junk.. 
 but these guys may :)
[21:18] <afr> hi all and Profg
[21:19] <RedCloud> 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] <Cassidy_>  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] <ProfG> afr  :-)
[21:19] <ProfG> "hi all and ProfG"?
[21:19] <ProfG> am I missing something?
[21:19] <Bawn> RedCloud had I been borna  part of that 
society I would still be given the opporunity to know 
God. :)  
[21:19] <RedCloud> afr: is that you?
[21:19] <Bawn> just as they are
[21:19] <afr> 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] <RedCloud> 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] <ProfG> re raist
[21:20] Action: RedCloud welcomes back raistlinn
[21:20] <Bawn> RedCloud.. why do you think I wasnt born 
Hindu? :)
[21:20] <raistlinn> re all
[21:20] <Cassidy_> Red...perhaps you could spell out 
yopur objection to Gods character. It would make it 
much easier to discuss.
[21:20] <raistlinn> server problems
[21:21] <RedCloud> bawn: You could be a Hindu, but my 
point was, society generally shapes your religion especially 
in those cultures
[21:21] <RedCloud> cassidy : I dont understand your last 
question
[21:22] <raistlinn> Red: yes, bu thtere are many instances 
where it does not, I have rationally accepted christianity, 
and am a convert from nihilism
[21:22] <Bawn> RedCloud  :)
[21:22] <Cassidy_> Another question I see is: Is God 
obliged to deliver his message of redemption equally 
to all men?
[21:22] <Bawn> Cassidy  if God doesnt deliver it equally.. 
will he have more mercy to those who have less knowledge 
of Him?
[21:23] <afr> He put in the heavens for all to see
[21:23] <Bawn> RedCloud the previous questions was basically.. 
what does God owe us.
[21:23] <raistlinn> Cassidy: that is a stupid question, 
or rather, the answer is yes
[21:23] <raistlinn> Cass: he isn't obliged to anyone
[21:23] <Bawn> raistlinn is it?
[21:23] <RedCloud> Cassidy: that is a good question. 

[21:23] <raistlinn> Cass: so he is euqally not obliged 
to everyone
[21:23] <Bawn> raistlinn I see nothing stupid about that 
question
[21:23] <raistlinn> Bawn: well, it is sort of stupid
[21:23] <RedCloud> DOES EVERYONE HERE SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING 
JUST NOW?
[21:23] <Cassidy_> Red...there are implicit objections 
in your questions...but they are difficult to adress 
without clarity...
[21:24] <raistlinn> bawn: does God? of course, Got loves 
everyone
[21:24] <Bawn> raitlinn. mayhaps we are not as intelligent 
as ya :)  
[21:24] <Cassidy_> Red...tell us.
[21:24] <raistlinn> bawn: must God? of course not, god 
owes no one anything
[21:24] pilgrim (Rooster@205.218.167.46) joined #apologetics.
[21:24] <ProfG> REd: don't shout
[21:24] <Bawn> howdy pilgrim
[21:24] <raistlinn> hi pilgrim
[21:24] <pilgrim> hey Bawn
[21:24] <raistlinn> Bawn: perhapse I should not have 
called it a stupid question
[21:24] <pilgrim> raistlinn
[21:24] <RedCloud> 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] <Bawn> raistlinn perhaps not
[21:25] <Cassidy_> raist...equally not obliged? Im not 
sure I see the significance of that distinction....
[21:25] <RedCloud> profg: I only shout when I get inspiration
[21:25] <raistlinn> bawn: but it is close, as the answer 
is almost obvious
[21:25] <Bawn> raistlinn I dont think it is so obvious
[21:25] <Cassidy_> Red!!! imagine that!!! actually, it 
happens often.
[21:25] <RedCloud> raistlin: the only stupid question 
is the one thats not asked
[21:25] <raistlinn> Cassidy: of the distinction that 
God does not have to do things for us, he chooses to?
[21:25] <ProfG> Red: that is the point of this channel
[21:25] <Bawn> raistlinn  
[21:25] Milhous (ircle@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics.
[21:25] <ProfG> we can quote if we want to
[21:25] <Bawn> hey milhouse
[21:25] <raistlinn> Red: the only stupid question is 
the one where the answer is ignored
[21:25] <Cassidy_> And there is a time for quoting from 
a "book"...but not now.
[21:26] <Bawn> raistlinn hmmmmmmmmm *shrug*
[21:26] <raistlinn> hi mil
[21:26] <raistlinn> yes bawn?
[21:26] <Cassidy_> thanx, prof. ;)
[21:26] <RedCloud> 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] <raistlinn> Red: it is better than having no 
idea as to what i the absolute truth
[21:27] <ProfG> Red: it is the absolute truth. AND it 
says so in a book.
[21:27] <Milhous> Hello.
[21:27] <RedCloud> profg: lol
[21:27] <raistlinn> 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] <ProfG> hi mil
[21:27] <Bawn> 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] <raistlinn> Cass: you don't see the importance 
of that distinction?
[21:27] <ProfG> brb
[21:27] ProfG (wgreen01@131.94.2.127) left irc: Leaving
[21:27] <Bawn> or did his equal love come after the cross?
[21:27] <Cassidy_> 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] <RedCloud> Bawn: I dont believe the  God  of 
love would ever do that! Thats wheere I disagree with 
the bible!
[21:28] <raistlinn> Bawn: perhaps the people to be killed 
would be better off dead?
[21:28] <Bawn> Raistlinn in many cases it was women and 
children.....   
[21:28] <raistlinn> Red: what do yuo mean by Love, when 
you say God of love
[21:28] <Bawn> RedCloud  I do.  I just wanted to see 
how raistlinn would answer
[21:28] <RedCloud> bawn: some parts of the bible attribute 
certain human (and evil) action to God. That is wrong! 
(in my opinion)
[21:28] <raistlinn> Bawn: and men are the only poeple 
who should be killed, or would be better off dead?
[21:28] <Bawn> RedCloud   for he is a just God.
[21:29] <Bawn> RedCloud  ( you yourself just said he 
was a God of Love!!)
[21:29] Taco (you@mw2-185.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:29] <Bawn> taco!
[21:29] <raistlinn> hi taco
[21:29] <Taco> hi
[21:29] <raistlinn> Red?
[21:29] <Bawn> raistlinn  no men were the ones at war
[21:29] <Cassidy_> 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] <Bawn> raistlinn btw I disagree with the better 
off dead theory :)
[21:30] <RedCloud> 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] <Bawn> RedCloud I see.
[21:30] <afr> When God goes about building and protecting 
His chosen people, non-believers don't matter
[21:30] <Cassidy_> Red...by what standard do you consider 
those parts of the bible morally "wrong"?
[21:30] <raistlinn> Red: dying is cruetly?
[21:30] <raistlinn> cruelty?
[21:30] <Milhous> Death is a neutral event. We all die.
[21:30] <RedCloud> afr: all people matter to God. Even 
the evil ones.
[21:30] <Taco> afr; what do you mean?
[21:30] <Bawn> RedCloud  hold on I am going to qwuote 
a book for you *grin*
[21:30] <Bawn> how do you quote verses?
[21:30] <Taco> protecting?
[21:31] <afr> I mean I read the bible
[21:31] <raistlinn> Cass: hm, I made a mistake, I picked 
on the obligation rather than the equal
[21:31] <RedCloud> raist: punishment is cruelty. 
[21:31] <raistlinn> Cas: I say that mercy is distriubteed 
equally
[21:31] <Bawn> ok
[21:31] <Taco> 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] <pilgrim> perhaps that "cruelty" of the O.T. was 
a picture of Gods Judgement in Enternity
[21:32] <Milhous> Punishment isn't cruelty. If a father 
disciplines his son, is it cruel?
[21:32] <Bawn> ok
[21:32] <raistlinn> Redcloud: and how about discipline?
[21:32] <Cassidy_> raist...that may well be...but only 
within the limitations of justice.
[21:32] <RedCloud> 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] <raistlinn> Cass: what do you mean?
[21:32] <Milhous> Cruel is inflicting pain for no reason, 
or to derive pleasure from someone's suffering...
[21:32] <Taco> afr?
[21:32] <pilgrim> Hell is cruel punishment for enternity
[21:32] <raistlinn> Cass: mercy goes beyond justice, 
or it is no mercy at all
[21:32] <afr> How can an  all powerful entity do either 
good or evil? Those are human traits.
[21:33] <raistlinn> red: raistlinn@htp.net
[21:33] <Bawn> RedCloud pretty much all of Job 34 addresses 
what your talking about...  read it and let me know 
what you think
[21:33] <raistlinn> my home page is http://www.htp.com/raistlin/index.htm
[21:33] <raistlinn> 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] <raistlinn> Pilgrim: no, hell is the rejection 
of God
[21:33] <Taco> afr: I recommend a really good book dealing 
with the problem of evil.
[21:33] <Cassidy_> 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] <raistlinn> Red: walk with God
[21:33] <Taco> "When Skeptics Ask"   Norman Geisler
[21:33] <RedCloud> bawn: Ive read Job
[21:33] <Taco> He deals with that issue very well
[21:34] <afr> I don't have a problem with God's "evils"
[21:34] <Taco> also: CS Lewis has a book on it but I 
can't remember the name of the book
[21:34] <RedCloud> raist: since we're trading homepages, 
mine is: www.interlog.com/~meil/   
[21:34] <Bawn> afr I have an essay on cruel evil, good 
and sin if your interested I can mail it to you
[21:34] <pilgrim> 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@199.218.197.247) left irc: Leaving
[21:34] <Bawn> REd :) 
[21:34] <Taco> 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] <afr> Free will will do that to you
[21:35] <pilgrim> Hell is the bearing of the wrath of 
God for eternity raist
[21:35] <Bawn> RedCloud read it again :)  tell me what 
you think about chapter 34
[21:35] <Taco> well, I gotta be a goin... it's been fun 
even though short. :)
[21:35] <raistlinn> Pilgrim: are youa calvanist or a 
lutheran?
[21:35] <Taco> afr: have a good evening... ttyl
[21:35] Taco (you@mw2-185.mwtech.com) left #apologetics.
[21:35] <Cassidy_> 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] ../

