
[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/13/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/13/96

[02:00] Gromit (gromit@206.83.134.6) joined #apologetics.
[02:03] Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) joined #apologetics.
[02:03] <Deanr> hey Gromit
[02:04] <Gromit> Deanr?
[02:04] Sharisha (sigh@134.193.59.3) joined #Apologetics.
[02:04] <Gromit> Hello there.
[02:05] <Deanr> i'm lagged
[02:05] CTCP PING: 829375535 from Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) 
to #apologetics
[02:05] <Sharisha> hey there
[02:05] <Gromit> Hello Sharisha
[02:06] <Deanr> Sharisha: what about control?
[02:06] <Sharisha> whoa...busy night
[02:06] <Sharisha> okay.
[02:07] <Sharisha> What is control used for?
[02:07] <Sharisha> obvious quetion
[02:07] <Sharisha> question even
[02:07] <Deanr> The issue is when "hell" was inserted into 
Scripture, yes? You replied with "control". Please explain.
[02:08] <Gromit> Wooo...what have I stumbled on to here?
[02:08] <Sharisha> What is control used for?
[02:09] <Deanr> Sharisha: please explain your position 
if you would.
[02:09] <Sharisha> I am. lets go socratic. its easier.
[02:09] <Sharisha> What is control used for?
[02:10] <Deanr> by whom?
[02:10] <Sharisha> control in general
[02:10] <Deanr> Sharisha: I have no idea what you're 
talking about. Please enlighten me.
[02:10] <Sharisha> okay...well start in the begining.
[02:10] <Sharisha> what is control?
[02:10] <Gromit> That's a very good place to start
[02:11] <Gromit> I hate lag
[02:11] <Sharisha> well, unless you are writting an epic, 
but this isn't on that par.
[02:11] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-79.netzone.com) 
joined #Apologetics.
[02:12] <Gromit> Howdy Pergo
[02:12] <Pergolesi> hello gromit, what's happening in 
the room tonight?
[02:13] <Sharisha> hell.
[02:13] <Gromit> Dunno, looks like they are skriting 
the issue of Hell...
[02:13] <Deanr> Sharisha: I don't know about control.
[02:13] <Deanr> Sharisha: I'm waiting for you to explain.
[02:13] <Gromit> I kinda came in on the middle.
[02:13] <Sharisha> Gromit: I have been up 29 hours straight...I 
am barely coherent much less deep at this point. work 
with me
[02:13] <Pergolesi> hmmmm
[02:13] tobe (DJ@dj.bayarea.net) joined #apologetics.
[02:13] <Gromit> No prob. 8o)
[02:14] <tobe> hi
[02:14] <Gromit> hi tobe
[02:14] <Sharisha> oh...i thought that was to be...as 
in Shakespeare...
[02:15] tobe (DJ@dj.bayarea.net) left #apologetics.
[02:15] <Deanr> Sharisha: you said that the concept of 
hell is mythology.. made up by Christianity. I asked 
how and when it was inserted into Scripture. We haven't 
made it must past this.
[02:15] <Pergolesi> gromit, can you prove the existence 
of hell :)
[02:16] <Sharisha> DeanR: did you see what I told gromit...i 
haven't slept in...30 hours at this point in time exactly. 
It will take me a bit
[02:16] <Gromit> Sure...I got a parking stub.
[02:16] <Pergolesi> hehe
[02:16] <Deanr> Sharisha: do you realize how many times.. 
and in how many seperate books of scripture that hell 
is referred to? Now.. since it is mentioned so many 
times.. what your contending.. is that somehow... the 
early church inserted this fa

lse doctrine in all 
[02:17] <Sharisha> DeanR: it is the same book. It is 
a...motiff. A theme carried thorugh out the book.
[02:17] <Deanr> these seperate books.. and somehow further.. 
inserted it so that the rest of the text would mold 
nicely around the topic. Don't you think that is a 
bit far fetched?
[02:18] <Deanr> Sharisha: you don't know much about how 
Scripture was written and compiled do you?
[02:18] inkling (inkling@206.83.134.11) joined #apologetics.
[02:18] <Sharisha> the concept of hell?
[02:18] <Gromit> INK!
[02:18] <inkling> hi
[02:18] <Deanr> hi inkling
[02:18] <inkling> GROM!
[02:18] <inkling> Hola Senor DeanR
[02:18] <Pergolesi> hello inkling, are you fresh?
[02:18] <Sharisha> DeanR: books are made to have themes...and 
hell fits in nicely.
[02:19] <inkling> Fresh as a fine Belgian Waffle
[02:19] <Gromit> The thing that amazes me is the abandoning 
of the concept of truth.
[02:19] <Pergolesi> Belgians Rule!?
[02:19] <Deanr> Sharisha: again, how and when was this 
false doctrine so nicely inserted?
[02:19] <inkling> I wonder how many Belgians will go 
to Hell
[02:19] <Sharisha> Deanr: it all started when it was 
written.
[02:19] <inkling> Amen Grom
[02:19] <Deanr> Sharisha: in other words, evidence man... 
show me some evidence.
[02:20] <Sharisha> Deanr: there is no evidence other 
than the way the book was written
[02:20] <Sharisha> Gromit: truth is all relative
[02:21] <Pergolesi> I believe that the issue relies on 
faith
[02:21] <inkling> Wrong Shar
[02:21] <Gromit> Nothing is absoulute?
[02:21] <Sharisha> ink: nice judgement
[02:21] <inkling> If truth is all relative, why debate 
or even discuss *anything*?
[02:21] <Deanr> Sharisha: a rather significant claim 
to be adhering to that has no evidence, eh Sharisha?
[02:21] <inkling> Shar...discernment isn't "judgement"
[02:21] <Sharisha> ink: wrong. that is a judgemtn word 
dictating that something is right and something is 
wrong
[02:22] <inkling> The sun exists. Absolute truth....2 
+ 2 = 4. Absolute truth
[02:22] <Gromit> Math does not count.
[02:22] <Pergolesi> if all is valueless, then why should 
we discuss anything?
[02:22] <inkling> Shar...something IS right, and some 
things ARE wrong. Child Molesting IS wrong.
[02:22] <Sharisha> okay..obviously this is a happy invite 
the pagan to kick the poor thing around discusion. 
No one even wanted to hear my opinion, you were all 
looking for an argument. Grow up, boys.
[02:23] Sharisha (sigh@134.193.59.3) left #Apologetics.
[02:23] <inkling> Shar, it is hardly judgmental to agree 
with every major world religion and philosophy and 
say that , e.g., lying is wrong
[02:23] <Deanr> well, he sure told us and put us in our 
places, eh?
[02:23] <Pergolesi> Sharisha didn't give an argument 
though
[02:23] <inkling> Guess she lost...and, imagine that, 
she blamed her gender
[02:24] <Gromit> damn, Ink, lighten up.
[02:24] <Pergolesi> how can you lose when you don't play?
[02:24] <inkling> I'm light as a lilting Belgian Waffle
[02:25] <inkling> I'm heading back to #inklings...my 
work is done here  :)
[02:25] inkling (inkling@206.83.134.11) left #apologetics.
[02:25] <Gromit> What's going on in inklings.
[02:26] <Pergolesi> nada, right now
[02:26] <Gromit> Inks got a fire in his belly...dude 
got a bad tude.
[02:27] <Pergolesi> uh huh uh huh, wella wella uh huh
[02:28] <Gromit> ???
[02:28] <Pergolesi> sorry my alter ego, Vinny Barbarino 
surfaced
[02:28] <Gromit> hehehe
[02:29] <Pergolesi> I think it may be time for chaos
[02:32] Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) left #apologetics.
[02:45] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-79.netzone.com) 
left #Apologetics.
[02:50] Gromit (gromit@206.83.134.6) left #apologetics.
===================================================================
[14:37] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:37] <PMantis> I am here, and waiting
[14:37] <PMantis> Acolyte.
[14:37] <PMantis> hey
[14:37] <PMantis> howz it goin'
[14:37] <PMantis> what up?
[14:37] <PMantis> Word to my man Acolyte.
[14:37] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[14:37] <PMantis> welcome
[14:37] <jharrell> hello
[14:38] <PMantis> So...
[14:38] <jharrell> Could we go back to Lorenzo Snow's 
comment?
[14:38] <PMantis> sure
[14:38] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) joined #apologetics.
[14:38] <jharrell> If I understand you object to the 
idea that God was once "like" us and that we can become 
"like" him?
[14:39] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[14:39] <PMantis> yes, I object
[14:39] <jharrell> Can you tell me why?
[14:39] <PMantis> Oh, I see Acolyte.  You just wanted 
to op yourself,  That's why you wouldn't come to my 
channel :)
[14:39] <Acolyte> jharrell Orthodox christians reject 
the notion that God is temporal and that there is more 
than one true deity
[14:39] <PMantis> One more time:  the idea that man can 
become Godlike contradicts the Bible
[14:39] Mode change '+o PMantis ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[14:40] <jharrell> Guys, I'll stay with this, but could 
we stay with one questions at a time?
[14:40] jared (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) joined #apologetics.
[14:40] <PMantis> sure.  one question at a time is great.
[14:40] <Acolyte> brb
[14:40] <PMantis> hi jared
[14:40] <jharrell> Pmantis: The idea of deification is 
taught in the Bible, as well as by early christian 
leaders
[14:40] <PMantis> how you doin' this fine Saturday.
[14:40] <jharrell> What is "brb"?
[14:40] <PMantis> Jharrell, no bible bot, but you are 
going to have to back up that statement with scripture.
[14:41] <jharrell> Ok, let me get my scriptures
[14:41] <PMantis> brb = be right back
[14:41] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:41] <jharrell> Ok, here we go
[14:41] <Cannibal> hello :)
[14:41] <PMantis> hello
[14:41] <jharrell> hello cannibal
[14:42] <Cannibal> hi jharrell :)
[14:42] <Acolyte> jharrel while it is true that some 
early Christains taught the Doctirne of Theosis, it 
is NOT taking on God's essence ontologically, which 
is what the lds claim.
[14:42] <Cannibal> greetings and felicitations PMantis
[14:42] <PMantis> what we are doing here is discussing 
problems (as I see them) with mormon doctrine, one 
issue at a time.
[14:42] <Acolyte> pmantis there is a bible bot here
[14:42] <jharrell> Acolyte: In plain english please
[14:42] <PMantis> Acolyte:  scroll up,  I just said back 
it up, I didn't say he had to use a bot. :)
[14:43] <jharrell> As we start, how does the Bible bot 
worlk?
[14:43] <jharrell> work?
[14:43] <Acolyte> jharrel,ok they theought we became 
like God in our moral likness not in his nature
[14:43] <jharrell> Acolyte: thanks
[14:43] <Acolyte> like that
[14:43] <PMantis> same as Logos, kjv, right?
[14:43] <Acolyte> yes
[14:43] <PMantis> cool
[14:44] <PMantis> bible bots rule
[14:44] <PMantis> excellent
[14:44] <Acolyte> no niv tho
[14:44] <PMantis> that's fine, the KJV will do just fine, 
but I wish we would upgrade to NKJV
[14:44] <Cannibal> Acolyte, is it capable of displaying 
the ASV?
[14:44] Nick change: jared -> `CyberGuy
[14:45] <Acolyte> cannibal asv?
[14:45] <Acolyte> oh
[14:45] <Acolyte> i am not sure
[14:45] <Cannibal> Acolyte, American Standard Version
[14:45] <Acolyte> cannibal yeah I got it
[14:45] <Acolyte> i mean I understood asv
[14:45] <PMantis> OK, the bot is our friend now, so let's 
get to the topic at hand "deification"
[14:46] <jharrell> Ok lets start here
[14:46] <jharrell> What is Pauls saying?
[14:46] <Acolyte> jharrell, you can start there with 
Pmantis, but I would like to see how you justify your 
use of the bible and your authority to interpret it 
seeing that you are not part of the Church and that 
the Bible belongs to the Church

[14:47] <Acolyte> jharrl that is, I do not accept your 
presuption that you have the authority to rightly interpret 
the bible at all
[14:47] <jharrell> Acolyte: OK, so you interpret it, 
what does this passage say?
[14:48] `CyberGuy (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) got netsplit.
[14:48] <Cannibal> Acolyte, Do you believe that no one 
but a Christian (definition to follow no doubt:) can 
use the bible to establish a point in a debate?
[14:50] <roy-> jharrell if you do a word study on children 
you will see in all places in scriptures that we are 
ADOPTED CHILDREN of God ...there was only one Son of 
God
[14:50] <PMantis> Anyone can misinterpret the Bible. 
 I am sure we all do.  But the Bible, being an inspired 
work, by it's nature does not allow for vast amounts 
of logical extrapolation.  
[14:50] <Acolyte> jharell that the Spirit teaches us 
and bears witness to our confort and that we are shares 
in the victory of Christ
[14:50] <Acolyte> jharrell St paul teaches us there that 
we are united to Christ by his Humanity
[14:50] <jharrell> Roy: I agree - adopted - But what 
about the joint-heirs part in what way are we glorified 
with him?
[14:51] <Acolyte> jhareel sure, we are co-heirs with 
Messiah we are united to him inhis Humanity
[14:51] <jharrell> So do either of you want to answer 
the question?
[14:51] <PMantis> And Acolytes point about "adopted children" 
vs "son of God" is well made.  It is clear in many scriptural 
instances.
[14:51] <Acolyte> jharrell I just did
[14:51] <PMantis> in fact, check out this
[14:51] <jharrell> Acolyte: We are united with him in 
"glory" not humanity
[14:51] <Acolyte> jharrell we are united to the Messiah 
in his Humanity, hence as Son of Man we will sit with 
him
[14:52] <Acolyte> jhareel it is both
[14:52] <Acolyte> jharrell, the Body is glorified
[14:52] <jharrell> OK, so in what way do we partake of 
his glory?
[14:52] <Acolyte> jharela nd we are presently seated 
with him in glory, since he is the Covenant head
[14:52] <Acolyte> jharrell ethically first and formost
[14:52] Action: Cannibal notes that xian theology seems 
to teach that xians (as the new humanity - spiritual 
descendants of the last Adam) are united to Christ 
in his humanity, and that this union is eternal.
[14:52] <Acolyte> jharrell then our human nature becomes 
like HIS human nature at the resurrection
[14:53] <jharrell> Acolyte: and what does that mean we 
will be?
[14:53] <Acolyte> cannibal Christ is the Everlasting 
Man
[14:53] <Acolyte> jharrel Glorified Humans
[14:53] <PMantis> exactly
[14:53] <Acolyte> jharrel we willbe like him for we shall 
see hiim, just as he is
[14:53] <jharrell> "Glorified Humans" like Christ?
[14:54] `CyberGuy (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) got lost 
in the net-split.
[14:54] <Acolyte> jharrell sure, except we are not incarnations 
of Deity, we have one nature ontologically, he has 
two united in one person
[14:54] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I know of Chalcidon(sp?) 
:)
[14:54] <PMantis> Jesus is God, and like God, is eternal. 
 He was not a human first
[14:54] <Acolyte> cannibal chalcedon, ;)
[14:54] <jharrell> The point is we become like Christ 
right?
[14:55] <Acolyte> jharrell the point is that we become 
like christ in what he redeemed, not in what was not 
redeemed
[14:55] Shostakov (shoubeck@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net) 
joined #Apologetics.
[14:55] <Acolyte> jharrel christ redeemed our bodies 
and souls, not his deity, so what is raised to Glory 
is our bodies and souls
[14:55] <jharrell> But you just said we become "glorified 
humans" like Christ
[14:56] <Acolyte> jharrell sure, inso far as jesus HUmanity 
was glorified, we will be like Him in that glorified 
humanity
[14:56] <Cannibal> PMantis, Do you think his taking on 
of human nature changed him in any way?
[14:56] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I was close mate :)
[14:56] <PMantis> We may share characteristics with God, 
the Father, and the Son, like Free Will, the ability 
to determine right from wrong, etc.  Sharing characteristics 
with God does not make us Gods.
[14:56] <Acolyte> cannibal I willlet it slide dude. ;)
[14:56] <jharrell> Actually, I would say gods
[14:56] <jharrell> little "g"
[14:56] <Acolyte> pmantis those are communicable attirbutes, 
ethical mostly
[14:56] <PMantis> the distinction is lost on me.
[14:57] <Acolyte> jharrell little g or biog G, Jesus 
says there is only ONE true God, so any other  God 
is a false God
[14:57] <Acolyte> jharrell hence little g is a false 
god
[14:57] <Cannibal> PMantis, Isn't it true that only the 
good (as in not fallen) have true freedom of the will, 
since all others are in bondage to sin.
[14:57] <jharrell> Tell me, would you interpretation 
be different if early church fathers believed and taught 
the idea of deification?
[14:57] <Acolyte> pmantis ok what is INcommunicable is 
like his omnipresence, omniscicnece etc, his moral 
attributes he does communicate with us.
[14:58] <Acolyte> jhareel I derive my teaching fromt 
eh Fathers
[14:58] <Acolyte> brb
[14:58] glo` (gcw@dp1-060.ppp.iglou.com) joined #apologetics.
[14:58] <jharrell> OK, shal we look at what some of them 
taught?
[14:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[14:59] <roy-> adopted children carry no common nature 
of their parents...but they can inherit anything the 
parents bestow on their children but God will not share 
his glory with another.Isiah 42:8
[14:59] <Cannibal> jharrell, The term deification is 
still in use in the Catholic communion.
[15:00] <Acolyte> jharrl that is fine, I am quite familair 
with the PAtristics, but you chruch says hthat they 
were apostates, so do you go to ppl you consider apostates 
for your teaching?
[15:00] <PMantis> don't confuse Catholicism with Biblical 
Christianity
[15:00] <Acolyte> pmantis just chill dude
[15:00] <jharrell> Acolytes: You may want to be careful 
about what you assume that we teach
[15:00] <PMantis> Acolyte:  you Catholic?  Please say 
it isn't so!
[15:00] <Acolyte> jharrell and the same goes for you
[15:00] <Acolyte> Pmantis I am Anglican
[15:01] <PMantis> jharrel we don't assume anything.  
I read the doctrine, articles of faith, etc.
[15:01] <Cannibal> PMantis, I have no problems with distinguishing 
Protestant varieties of xianity from Catholicism :)
[15:01] <Acolyte> jharrel I have read the Patrictis all 
40+ volumes and I have read gobs of lds theology as 
well
[15:01] <jharrell> Acolytes: Have I made any assumptions 
about your belief?
[15:01] <Acolyte> jharrell yes
[15:01] <jharrell> Li9ke what?
[15:01] <jharrell> like
[15:01] <PMantis> Cannibal:  Christians aren't denominational 
by definition.  The Bible is the only authority, being 
the only written work of God.
[15:01] <Acolyte> jharrel that the early chruch taught 
your understanding of theosis, which they did not
[15:02] cwewwess (deadhead@pmc16.rt66.com) joined #apologetics.
[15:02] <jharrell> ok, lets look shall we?
[15:02] glo` (gcw@dp1-060.ppp.iglou.com) left #apologetics.
[15:02] <Acolyte> pmantis that is an inhouse debate, 
lets concentrate at the issue at hand
[15:02] <Cannibal> PMantis, are you in a denomination?
[15:02] <PMantis> nope
[15:02] <Acolyte> jharrlehave you beenreadng the bk by 
lds, Are Mormons CHristains?" ?
[15:02] <PMantis> I am a Christian:  a believer in Justification 
by Faith in Jesus' Death and Resurrection.  
[15:03] Sammoda (Intouch@l-pool.u-net.com) joined #Apologetics.
[15:03] <Acolyte> pmantis that is an inhouse debate, 
lets concentrate at the issue at hand
[15:03] <PMantis> Acolyte:  I was answering questions 
posed by cannibal
[15:03] <Acolyte> pmanitis just reminding u
[15:03] <PMantis> thanks 
[15:03] <jharrell> "If the word became a man, it is so 
that men may become gods" Saint Ireanus - Against Heresies
[15:03] <jharrell> Acolyte: No, haven;t read the book 
you refer to
[15:03] <Acolyte> Jhareel what is your source for that 
quote?
[15:04] <PMantis> Saint?  who made him a saint?   Who 
says he was right?
[15:04] <jharrell> Against Heresies Book 5 Preface
[15:04] <Acolyte> jhareel I know what St Ireneaus is 
saysing since I have read Against Heresies, have your 
ead it, or just that quote?
[15:04] <Cannibal> PMantis, how do you know that Catholicism 
is not "Biblical Christianity"?
[15:04] Sammoda (Intouch@l-pool.u-net.com) left #Apologetics.
[15:04] <Acolyte> Cannibal forget that convo for now 
plz
[15:04] <PMantis> Cannibal:  because Catholic Doctrine 
contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the Bible
[15:05] <Cannibal> Acolyte, gladly mate :)
[15:05] <Acolyte> Pmanits put a corq in it
[15:05] <PMantis> corq?
[15:05] <Acolyte> cork whatever
[15:05] <Acolyte> u know what I meant
[15:06] <jharrell> "Yea, I say, the word of God became 
a man so that you might learn from a man how to become 
a god" Saint Clement of Alexandria, Exortation ot the 
Greeks
[15:06] <Acolyte> Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies 
or did you just read that citation?
[15:06] <jharrell> Are you guys there?
[15:06] cwewwess (deadhead@pmc16.rt66.com) left #apologetics.
[15:07] <PMantis> Mormon Doctrine teaches that God was 
a sinner.
[15:07] <PMantis> I don't believe God was a sinner
[15:07] <Acolyte> Jharrell I asked u a question, please 
answer
[15:07] <Acolyte> Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies 
or did you just read that citation?
[15:07] <jharrell> Are you guys there?
[15:07] <Acolyte> Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies 
or did you just read that citation?
[15:07] <Acolyte> Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies 
or did you just read that citation?
[15:07] <Acolyte> Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies 
or did you just read that citation?
[15:07] <Cannibal> cwewwess, hello are you atheist, Christian, 
ham, or gnostic today?
[15:07] <Cannibal> jharrell, I am here
[15:07] <Cannibal> jharrell, I suppose that the quotes 
are taken from a Mormon publication?
[15:08] <Cannibal> Acolyte, patience mate :)
[15:08] <jharrell> Can you see what I am writing?
[15:08] <Cannibal> jharrell, yes I can.
[15:08] <PMantis> yes
[15:08] <Acolyte> Jharrel, Tertullian, the Father of 
LAtin Theology says that the Heretics twist the Fathers 
our of context, which you are doing
[15:08] <jharrell> Can you hold on a minute?
[15:08] <Acolyte> Jharrell as does Athanasius of Alexandira, 
the Father of Orthodoxy
[15:08] <PMantis> we will be here
[15:09] <jharrell> I'm having trouble with my system, 
I'm going to leave the channel, I'll be right back
[15:09] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
left #apologetics.
[15:09] <Acolyte> jharrell the Council fo Nicea and the 
condemendx the idea that Theosis meant anyting other 
than like God in an ethical sense
[15:09] <PMantis> Shostakov:  on my channel now!
[15:09] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[15:09] <Acolyte> jharrell the Council fo Nicea and the 
condemendx the idea that Theosis meant anyting other 
than like God in an ethical sense
[15:09] <jharrell> are you there?
[15:10] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I would imagine that jharrell 
has taken the quotes of the fathers from a Mormon publication. 
It is likely that he has not read the full English 
translations of the fathers.
[15:10] <Acolyte> jharel yes I am here
[15:10] <Acolyte> cannibal I know :)
[15:10] <jharrell> I'm sorry, I was having trouble with 
my system, the screen became garbled
[15:10] <Acolyte> jharrel have you read these works cover 
to cover, or just these citations from another work?
[15:10] <Acolyte> jharrel have you read these works cover 
to cover, or just these citations from another work?
[15:11] <jharrell> No, I have not read the full works, 
I was just presenterd with these references recently. 
Some of them I have found in the source material, some 
as yet I have not
[15:12] <Cannibal> I suppose that only jharrell and I 
are not xian (definition as per Acolyte:).
[15:12] <jharrell> However, just because I have not read 
the full work, does not mean that the they are not 
correctly cited
[15:12] <Acolyte> jharrell, have you read anything frm 
scholarly source on what the doctrine of Theosis in 
the early Chruch?
[15:13] <Acolyte> jhareel no, thatis so, but it rasies 
the probability that they are taken out of context
[15:13] <jharrell> Mormon doctrine on this issue simply 
says that we are the children of God and as such, we 
may become like him
[15:13] Action: PMantis 's definition: Christians believe 
in Justification by Faith that Jesus CHrist died on 
the cross, bearing our sins away from the world, then, 
now, and for all time. We believe in the Bible. We 
believe that Jesus rose. We believe t

hat Salvation is by faith, and faith alone, and not 
through works
[15:14] <Cannibal> jharrell, Is the view(s) of the fathers 
important in your system of belief?
[15:14] <jharrell> Acolyte: You are correct, that is 
why I have been trying to locate each of them in context 
and examine them
[15:14] <Acolyte> jharrell, the Early Fathers did teach 
a KIND of Deificiation, they did nto teach the LDS 
kind, which you can find out by asking any informed 
Theologian of Roman Catholocism, Anglicanism or ORthodoxy, 
which all still teach the doc

tine of THeosis to this day
[15:14] <jharrell> Cannibal, not especially
[15:14] <PMantis> shall we talk about some of the other 
teachings contained in mormon doctrine?
[15:14] <jharrell> Acolyte: What "kind" of deification 
did they teach?
[15:14] <Cannibal> jharrell, Mormon doctrine comes from 
many sources, right? and some of the sources are living 
today if I am not misinformed.
[15:14] <Acolyte> Pmantis that is a rather Protestant 
interpretation, I think we can agree on the Nicean 
Creed as Calvin and Luther did for our purposes presently
[15:15] <jharrell> Cannibal: Yes
[15:16] <PMantis> "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints proclaims that                  Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The   
               body in which He performed His mission 
in the flesh

 was sired                  by that same Holy Being 
we worship as God, our Eternal                  Father. 
Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten 
                 by the Holy Ghost" (The Teachings of 
Ezra Taft Benson, pg


[15:16] <Acolyte> jharrell, they taught that we were 
fully embued with God's communicable attributes, not 
his INCOMMUNICABLE attributes, since we are children 
by Creation and then by Adoption, not children by NATURE, 
as Jesus is. Hence we are a cr

eature, we cannot be a crea
[15:16] <PMantis> In other words, God came down and had 
spiritual intercourse with Mary, begetting Jesus.  
Repulsive.
[15:16] <Cannibal> jharrell, Would I be correct in assuming 
that the fathers are not a source of your views on 
becoming a god, but are a historical link that you 
wish to use as a support for your beliefs.
[15:17] <Acolyte> cannibal excellent point
[15:17] <jharrell> PMantis: YOu are making a large jump
[15:17] <PMantis> Did anyone hear what ezra benson had 
to say?
[15:17] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I try mate :)
[15:17] <PMantis> large jump?  Not begotten by the Holy 
Ghost?  The bible says so.
[15:17] <jharrell> Cannibal: If I understand you correctly, 
yes
[15:17] KJarvs1 (KJarvs111@www-23-249.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[15:17] <PMantis> That is clearly a contradiction
[15:17] <Acolyte> cannial well said tho, very well said
[15:17] <Acolyte> cannibal very precise
[15:17] <KJarvs1> does anyone want to make money?
[15:18] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics.
[15:18] <jharrell> PMantis: Tell me wher the quote you 
cite says anything about intercourse between God and 
Mary
[15:18] <Cannibal> jharrell, what is the exact source 
of your belief on this subject? And would you ever 
question that source?
[15:18] Nick change: KJarvs1 -> Dter999
[15:18] <Orwell> Wow...busy...
[15:18] <Dter999> DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE MONEY?
[15:18] <PMantis>  Therefore, the Father             
     and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must 
have been                  associated together in the 
capacity of Husband and Wife; 
[15:19] <PMantis> that last is from (The Seer,       
           Orson Pratt, pg. 158). 
[15:19] Dter999 (KJarvs111@www-23-249.gnn.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[15:19] <Cannibal> PMantis, I think that view (Mary & 
god having intercourse) is a Muslim view (not official).
[15:19] Action: Acolyte notes that the Trinitarianism 
of the Early Fathers excludes the LDS view of deification
[15:19] <jharrell> Cannibal: I believe the the text of 
the Bible indicates that we may become like our father. 
I alos believe the teachings of the prophets of the 
restoration
[15:20] <Orwell> Muslim???
[15:20] <jharrell> PMantis: Put it on the board for all 
to see
[15:20] <Orwell> Heh heh heh,
[15:20] <Acolyte> Jharrel Robert M. Bowman, Jr, did an 
article a few years ago on this issue, you can aquire 
it for free in the WWW
[15:20] <PMantis> "The birth of the Saviour was as natural 
as are the births of our                  children; 
it was the result of natural action. He partook of 
flesh                  and blood - was begotten of 
his Father, as w

e were of our                  fathers" (Journal of 
Discourses, Brigham Young, 8:115). 
[15:20] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) got netsplit.
[15:20] <Cannibal> jharrell, would you accept "the prophets 
of the Restoration" as final?
[15:21] <jharrell> PMantis: Did you know that the First 
presidency closed the publication of "The Seer" because 
it was publishing incorrect teachings?
[15:21] <Acolyte> Cannibal it is an Sialmic misunderstanding 
that many Muslims have, tho it is not rooted inthe 
Quran
[15:21] <PMantis> "Christ was Begotten by an immortal 
Father in the same way                  that mortal 
men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Bruce          
        McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547). 
[15:21] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I know :)
[15:21] <Acolyte> jharrel how abut Hournal of Discourses?
[15:21] <PMantis> I didn't even quote the seer
[15:21] <Acolyte> Journal even
[15:21] <PMantis> how about mormon doctrine?
[15:21] <jharrell> Cannibal: If they are speaking in 
the capacity of a prophet yes
[15:21] <PMantis> have they admitted that "Mormon Doctrine" 
is false teaching?
[15:22] <PMantis> "And Christ was born into the world 
as the literal Son of this                  Holy Being; 
he was born in the same personal, real, and literal 
                 sense that any mortal son is born 
to a mortal fath

er. 
[15:22] <jharrell> Pmatis: Mormon Doctrine by BRM is 
not a source of offical Church Doctrine neither is 
the JoD
[15:22] <Cannibal> jharrell, Is this faith in the prophets 
fundamental to your beliefs?
[15:22] <Acolyte> <PMantis> that last is from (The Seer, 
                 Orson Pratt, pg. 158).
[15:22] <Acolyte> +
[15:22] <PMantis>  (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.742). 
[15:22] <jharrell> PMantis: Yes, you did qoute "The Seer"
[15:23] <jharrell> Cannibal: Yes it is
[15:23] pete (peter.mor@kbh1-2.diatel.dk) joined #Apologetics.
[15:23] <Acolyte> jharrel the doctrine of Theosis does 
nto nor never has taught that man becomes god by nature, 
on ethically we become like God
[15:23] <Acolyte> on=only
[15:23] <PMantis> Acolyte:  no way
[15:23] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I reckon you will have to 
establish the validity of biblical revelation, and 
the erroneous nature of the Prophets if you want to 
make much headway.
[15:24] <PMantis> I have given sources from my quotes. 
 Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, etc.
[15:24] <Acolyte> jharrel, plus the facts that the Fathers 
taught that the PErsons of the Trinity were the sme 
BEING, which the lds deny, for a reference sss James 
Talmage, Articles of the Faith.
[15:24] <Acolyte> cannibla that is aprt of it
[15:24] <jharrell> Pmantis: You realize that you have 
yet to quote an official source of doctrine for the 
LDS?
[15:25] <Acolyte> Pmantis in Glorification u will be 
without sin, will you not?
[15:25] <Acolyte> jhareel how is Pearl of GReat Price?
[15:25] pete (peter.mor@kbh1-2.diatel.dk) left irc: 

[15:25] <Acolyte> jharrel is the POGP official enough?
[15:26] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) got lost in the 
net-split.
[15:26] <jharrell> Acolyte: Yes
[15:26] <jharrell> It is scripture
[15:26] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) joined #Apologetics.
[15:26] <Acolyte> jharrel the book of Moses clearly teaches 
polytheism, that there is more than one deity, do you 
deny this?
[15:27] <jharrell> No
[15:27] <Acolyte> do you affirm it?
[15:27] <PMantis> jharrel:  that is not true. 
[15:27] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics.
[15:27] <Cannibal> PMantis, did you miss the discussion 
I had with jharrell?
[15:27] <Damocles> question: How can anyone pretend that 
deity belief is "rational?"
[15:27] <Acolyte> hullo damocles
[15:28] <jharrell> We will probably have to define terms, 
but go ahead
[15:28] <Acolyte> damocles easy, I don't pretend
[15:28] <Cannibal> Damocles, rational need not be the 
same as true :)
[15:28] <Acolyte> damocles how can any maintiant hat 
the beleif in Atheism is rational?
[15:28] <Cannibal> jharrell, do you believe in many gods?
[15:28] <Damocles> all: Okay, thanks for the input.  
The inability to defend that contention pretty much 
vindicates my opinion.
[15:28] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics.
[15:28] <Acolyte> jharell do you affirm that the book 
of Moses teaches many deities?
[15:28] Shostakov!shoubeck@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net 
kicked by PMantis!wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com: 
PMantis
[15:28] Mode change '+b *!*@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net 
' by PMantis!wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com
[15:29] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com) 
left #Apologetics.
[15:29] <jharrell> Cannibal: I believe that there are 
many gods, for me however there is but one God, the 
Father and one Lord Jesus Christ
[15:29] <jharrell> Acolyte: Yes
[15:29] <Cannibal> jharrell, are all the gods equal?
[15:29] <jharrell> Cannibal: No
[15:29] <Acolyte> jharrell, how can a finite become an 
infinite?
[15:29] <Cannibal> jharrell, is there one or many that 
are supreme?
[15:30] <jharrell> Acolyte: By the power of the atonement 
of Jesus Christ
[15:30] <jharrell> Cannibal: One
[15:30] <Acolyte> jharrell, how do you have more than 
one infinite?
[15:30] <Cannibal> jharrell, the others then are gods 
relative to us, but not relative to Jehovah?
[15:31] <Acolyte> cannibal Jehovah and Elohim have very 
different meaings tolds than you are generall acustomed 
to in xianity
[15:31] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I know
[15:31] <Acolyte> cannibal just checking
[15:31] <Cannibal> :)
[15:32] <jharrell> Cannibal: Would youu restate your 
question?
[15:32] <jharrell> you
[15:32] <Cannibal> jharrell, the others then are gods 
relative to us, but not relative 
[15:34] <jharrell> Cannibal: I don't presume to know 
much about other Gods, since my allegiance is to my 
Father in heaven and his Son. However, if what you 
are asking is relative to the "station" of those who 
ar

e deified, then yes "higher" than us, and "lower" than 
God
[15:35] <Cannibal> lag seems to be getting the better 
of me.
[15:35] <Cannibal> jharrell, yes that is what I did mean.
[15:35] <Cannibal> jharrell, are the gods that are lower 
than God infinite in their attributes?
[15:36] <jharrell> Folks, I'm over the amount of time 
that I wanted to spend here,m would any of you be interested 
in continuing this by email?
[15:37] <Cannibal> jharrell, not me, I am a simple atheist 
:)
[15:37] <jharrell> Cannibal: I don't know
[15:37] <jharrell> :-)
[15:37] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics.
[15:37] <Damocles> Anyone ready to answer my question 
now?
[15:37] <jharrell> What is your question?
[15:37] <Acolyte> Damocles repeat your qyuestion
[15:38] <Acolyte> jharrell is the father and son the 
same God or 2 different dieties
[15:38] <Acolyte> jharrell is the father and son the 
same God or 2 different dieties?
[15:38] Icarus (Marillion@198.190.226.24) joined #apologetics.
[15:38] <jharrell> Acolyte: One in purpose, seperate 
in substance
[15:38] <Icarus> ac, hows it goin
[15:38] <Icarus> its me loathian
[15:38] <Cannibal> jharrell, that's ok, I couldn't expect 
you to know everything about Mormonism.
[15:38] <Acolyte> jharrel seperate dieties, 2 dieties 
then
[15:38] <Damocles> Sure!  How can anyone pretend to have 
a rational reason for belief in deity constructs?  
That shouldn't be too difficult a question to answer. 
 If anyone had text files available which might answer 
the question, send them.  Than

ks.
[15:38] <jharrell> Cannibal: do you?
[15:38] <Acolyte> icarus just in time
[15:39] <Acolyte> Damacles see our web page
[15:39] <Damocles> aco: I would love to.  Might I FTP 
all the files from it?
[15:40] <jharrell> Acolyte: Yes 2
[15:40] <Cannibal> Acolyte, a little like the JW distinction.
[15:40] <Cannibal> jharrell, no, like I said I am a simple 
atheist.
[15:40] <Acolyte> http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[15:40] <jharrell> I guess we're even then :-)
[15:40] <Acolyte> Cannibal he's a Polytheist
[15:40] <jharrell> Henotheist
[15:40] <Acolyte> damocles sure d/l some files if you 
like
[15:41] <Acolyte> jharrel do youworship the Son? yes 
or no?
[15:41] <jharrell> subtle, yet important
[15:41] <jharrell> Yes
[15:41] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I know, but in a sense unlike 
the pagan polythism.
[15:41] <Acolyte> jhareel do you worship the Father?
[15:41] <Damocles> aco: Which set of deity constructs 
do you cultists try to demand exist?   And more to 
the point, does your "reason" exclude the existance of 
other deity constructs?
[15:41] <jharrell> Yes
[15:41] <Acolyte> cannibal its more Masonic tho
[15:41] <Acolyte> Damocles 1. I ma not a cultist. 2. 
I am a Christian Theist. 3. I would put forward Trinitarian 
Theism
[15:41] <Cannibal> Acolyte, like I said, you probably 
need to address the question of authority first.
[15:42] <Acolyte> damocles yues it does eclude any other 
deities.
[15:42] <Acolyte> Cannibal I know
[15:42] newbird (i13@199.185.50.135) joined #Apologetics.
[15:42] <Orwell> Ac: Actually, not really.
[15:42] <jharrell> Its been fun - take care and God Bless 
you all
[15:42] <Acolyte> orwell not really what?
[15:42] <Orwell> Ac: Hebrews believed in Baal...he just 
wasn't THE god...
[15:43] <Damocles> aco: Perhaps you should review what 
a cultist is and then rework your denials into something 
defendable.  You admit ou believe in the occult, you 
admit you're a Christianic cultist.  And yet you demand 
you're not a cultist.  I c

an't help but wonder at the dishonesty of people who 
try to pretend thay're rational.
[15:43] <Orwell> Ac: Christianity does not exclude other 
deities.
[15:43] <Orwell> Supreme deities, yes.
[15:43] <Cannibal> Damocles, try an epistemologically 
based approach, it is more fun.
[15:43] <Cannibal> jharrell, bye mate :)
[15:43] <Acolyte> orwell, some Jews did, it was called 
Apostasy, the diosl existed, but the True God only 
existed in reality
[15:43] <Acolyte> Orwell sure does
[15:43] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
left irc: jharrell
[15:43] newbird (i13@199.185.50.135) left #Apologetics.
[15:43] <Acolyte> Damacles how am I an occlutist simply 
because I am a theist?
[15:43] <Damocles> aco: Ah, I see.  Just as I expected. 
 You try to pretend you have a rational excuse for 
believing in the Christanic pantheon while at the same 
time deny the existance of other deity constructs on 
the same grounds.  Too cool.  Yo

u're Creationists, huh?  <smile>
[15:44] <Acolyte> Orwell see the Council of Nicea, pretty 
clear
[15:44] <Damocles> cann: I would rather stick with scientific 
method -- something that works every time.  
[15:44] <Acolyte> Damocles no i am not a Creationist
[15:44] <Acolyte> brb
[15:44] <Cannibal> Damocles, epistemology is scientific, 
but have your fun your own way :)
[15:44] <Orwell> Hmmm.
[15:44] <Orwell> Then what is Satan?
[15:45] <Damocles> aco: As I suggested, crack open a 
good old dictionary and see what a cultist is, what 
the occult is (they're two different things, by the 
way) and learn of your confusion.
[15:45] <Orwell> Pretty powerful for a non-supernatural...
[15:45] <Damocles> cann: Thanks!  I will.  <smile>
[15:45] Action: Cannibal likes to watch debates with 
the religious of this world :)
[15:46] Action: Cannibal wonders if this channel is 
shy of 4 letter words?
[15:46] <Damocles> orwe: "Satan" is a Christian deity construct. 
 It has evolved from many previous religions.  It was 
originally someone who judged a person's "soul" against 


a white feather and, if the scales tipped toward the 
"soul," "Satan" escorted the individual into a level of 
"Hell."
[15:46] <Acolyte> orwell satn is not a deity in Christina 
Theology
[15:46] mettle (dfyffe@port-1-22.jackson.zoomnet.net) 
joined #Apologetics.
[15:46] <Acolyte> Orwell supernatural does not = deity
[15:47] <Cannibal> :)
[15:47] <Damocles> aco: "Satan" is a Christian god.  Perhaps 
youre also laboring under a, um, theistic variation 
of what constitutes a deity.
[15:47] Icarus (Marillion@198.190.226.24) left #apologetics.
[15:47] <Orwell> Ah.
[15:47] <Orwell> Misunderstanding of terms, then.
[15:47] mettle (dfyffe@port-1-22.jackson.zoomnet.net) 
left #Apologetics.
[15:47] <Acolyte> Damocles please define deity
[15:48] <Damocles> orw: Worse:  Christanics confounded 
the Goddess Hel with their "Hell" myth and they also 
confounded Lucipher with Satan.  Christanics are incapable 
of discerning where their "Satan" myth comes from and 
how entertainment about the myth factors into their 
beliefs.
[15:48] <Acolyte> Damocles please define deity
[15:48] <Cannibal> Acolyte, do you apply the same kind 
of rules on profanity as the ops do on #bible? If not 
what rules do you apply?
[15:48] <Acolyte> Damacles what is yoru source for this 
information?
[15:48] <Acolyte> cannibal depends
[15:49] <Damocles> aco: Wouldn't you rather see what 
the usage of "deity" is in a dictionary rather than ask 
someone to define it?
[15:49] <Acolyte> Damocles which dictionary?
[15:50] <Acolyte> damocles a theological dictionary?
[15:50] <Cannibal> Acolyte, what does it depend on?
[15:50] <Acolyte> cannibal the context
[15:50] <Damocles> aco: <groan>  "Which dictionary."  Amazing. 
 My guess is that there are few Christanics who are 
willing to think rationally.
[15:50] <Acolyte> cannibal exclamation is not the same 
as blasphemy
[15:50] <Damocles> HEL, in the mythology of the ancient 
Germanic and
[15:50] <Damocles> Scandinavian races, the goddess of 
the lower world
[15:50] <Damocles> of death.  She was the daughter of 
Loki, the
[15:50] <Damocles> personification of malice, and was 
hurled by the
[15:50] <Damocles> All-Father into the depths of Niflheim, 
where she
[15:50] <Damocles> ruled over those human beings who 
died of disease
[15:50] <Damocles> or old age.
[15:50] <Damocles> In the Middle Ages she became confounded 
with the
[15:50] <Damocles> kingdom she ruled over, and eventually 
the double
[15:50] <Damocles> conception was held to be synonymous 
with hell.
[15:50] <Damocles> - The 1948 release of The American 
Peoples
[15:50] <Damocles> Encyclopedia
[15:52] <Acolyte> Damocles I am a Christian, not a Christianic, 
just like you are not an ASSHOLEtheist, so intoher 
words cuts the pejorative terms
[15:52] <Cannibal> Acolyte, how do you feel about nick 
names like God, Jesys, Jehovah, YHWH, etc?
[15:52] <Cannibal> oopps
[15:52] <Cannibal> Jesus
[15:52] <Acolyte> damcoles and did Hebrews dereive their 
view fromteh Germans?
[15:52] <Acolyte> Cannibal don't push it
[15:52] <Damocles> all: I'm off to download the weak 
attempts to justify the continued belief in the occult. 
 Thanks for the input.  I'll be sure to add the files 
to my growing archives.
[15:52] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I would not use the nicks 
myself
[15:52] <Acolyte> Damocles get soem education
[15:52] <Acolyte> canibal I woud hope youwold have more 
tolerance not to
[15:52] <Cannibal> Acolyte, I am interested in what you 
personally apply on this channel
[15:53] <Damocles> aco: Yet another example of your lack 
of education.  "Christanic" is a term that was coined 
by King James -- you know, the creator of the more 
race bigoted version of the classical Christanic 

mythologies.  
[15:53] <Acolyte> cannibal it varies from op to op
[15:53] <Acolyte> Damocles oh please
[15:53] <Acolyte> damocles u ae using in a  pejorative 
sense, which is the sence
[15:54] <Cannibal> Acolyte, are all your ops theists?
[15:54] <Acolyte> damocles u ae using in a  pejorative 
sense, which is the point
[15:54] <Acolyte> cannibal yes
[15:54] <Acolyte> Cannibal they are all Nicean Theists 
as well
[15:54] <Cannibal> Acolyte, are they all also Christian?
[15:54] <Damocles> aco: "Get some education..."  My guess 
is you've never researched the origins of the Christanic 
mythologies.  Ever read the Talmud?  Toldoth?  Or the 
Koran?  As I suspected, you haven't.  I su

spect you're not ALLOWED to.
[15:54] <Cannibal> ok
[15:54] <Acolyte> Cannibal we require adherrance to the 
Nicean Creed
[15:54] <Acolyte> Damocles actual;ly yeah I have
[15:55] <Cannibal> Acolyte, is ProfG still the channel 
manager?
[15:55] <Acolyte> Domacles I am aphilosopher major with 
emphasis in Religious Epistemology and historical Theology 
so I am well aware of other Theistic texts
[15:55] <Acolyte> cannibal yes
[15:55] <Damocles> aco: Great!  Nicea!  The council that 
had to VOTE on whether the so-called "Jesus" myth was 
a god or just the son of one.  The council that had 
to VOTE on what myths were the words of gods and

 what words weren't.  Too cool.
[15:55] <Damocles> aco: Then you should have no excuse.
[15:55] <Cannibal> Acolyte, did he pass a message on 
to you from me some time ago?
[15:56] Agape2 (alhuck@pm5-14.pacificnet.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[15:56] Action: Agape2 waves hello to everyone on this 
Channel, and hope that it is well with your souls!
[15:56] <Acolyte> Damocles the Arian conroversy had nothing 
to do with the histority of Ejsus but rather his ontological 
status
[15:56] <Acolyte> cannibal I think so
[15:56] <Cannibal> Acolyte, ok.
[15:57] <Acolyte> Damcoles oh excuse me, if I don't agree 
with you then I must bne all messe dup is that it? 
kinda flase bifurcaiton there
[15:57] <Acolyte> hulo agape2
[15:57] Action: Agape2 waves hello to everyone on this 
Channel, and hope that it is well with your souls!
[15:57] <Damocles> all: I'm going to go get those files. 
 Hopefully they'll be as amusing as those attempting 
to justify their occultism.  I can be found at frice@stbbs.com 
and on the #holysmoke channel if anyone wants to go 
back, educate themselv

es a little, then resume their excuses.
[15:57] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics.
[15:57] <Cannibal> Damocles, honestly, you can have much 
more fun with epistemology :)
[15:57] <roy-> damocles you are viewing history with 
an erroneous set of presuppositions....all councils 
were put together to deal with some form of heresy 
(socician or otherwise)
[15:57] <Agape2> whoa  this is not a God is Love kinda 
place no doubt
[15:57] <Agape2> lol
[15:57] Action: Agape2 desires that All will come to 
know the Gift of God...which is eternal Life!
[15:57] Action: Agape2 waves good-bye to All praying 
that we will all come to the Knowledge of the Fullness 
of God's LOVE! Keep the Faith! TODDLES!
[15:57] Agape2 (alhuck@pm5-14.pacificnet.net) left 
#Apologetics.
[15:58] <roy-> bye damocles ....have fun
[15:58] <Acolyte> roy he has no clue, he has not read 
the primary sources, he prolly just read snipts from 
the www and cut and pasted them
[15:58] <Acolyte> roy if he goes to the www, he will 
be in for a real education
[15:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[15:59] <Acolyte> roy Atheists like some theists have 
a real hard time seeing the opponant view as a rational 
alternative, or that the ppl are human in any real 
sense, they are always stupid or this or that
[15:59] <Acolyte> Roy it is a way they disaccoiate themselves 
form what they formerly believed, it justifies jtheir 
choice psychologically
[15:59] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[16:00] <creation> hello
[16:00] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[16:00] <Orwell> Hello, creation.
[16:00] <Acolyte> heya
[16:00] <creation> thanks :)
[16:00] <Cannibal> Acolyte, the way you approach a person 
makes a great deal of difference don't you think?
[16:00] <creation> hello orwell
[16:01] <roy-> ic acol...i was gone but came back to 
be enlighted by cannibals heroic attempts at philosophy
[16:01] <Acolyte> cannibal true but some ppl are so bitter 
and so sure that someone who is a theist for example 
will have NO credibility at all in their eyes, so I 
am viewed by Damocles and others as ipso facto being 
stupid, knowing only what my f

aith teaches, doing what I 
[16:02] <Cannibal> roy-, I have not made any philosophical 
observations.
[16:02] <Acolyte> roy where r u
[16:02] <roy-> acolyte what happened to our Mormon friend?
[16:02] <Acolyte> cannibal ever? ;)
[16:02] <Acolyte> roy he left
[16:02] <Cannibal> Acolyte, not on this channel ;)
[16:02] <Acolyte> roy his arguments fisseld on the early 
church
[16:03] <Acolyte> roy I let cannibal hound him for a 
while, (the enemy of my enemy is my freind)
[16:03] <Cannibal> Acolyte, actually I was attempting 
to gain some information, but he was not well informed 
enough about Mormonism to supply it.
[16:04] <Acolyte> canibal true
[16:04] <Acolyte> cannibal what specifically?
[16:05] <Acolyte> brb
[16:05] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left 
irc: Leaving
[16:05] Action: Cannibal will let that remain my own 
secret for the now :)
[16:05] <Cannibal> roy-, are you xian?
[16:05] <roy-> ic atheism not as a denial of logic...for 
all see cleary that there is a God by the things that 
He made(Romans), but as a pushing away or suppressing 
down the truth they know....they say we will have no 
God to rule over us
[16:05] <roy-> im in central Mississippi aolyte..yourself?
[16:06] <creation> cannibal:  I think that answers the 
question :)
[16:07] Action: creation is reminded by roy that he 
has to go read William Paley's "Natural Theology"
[16:07] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics.
[16:07] <Damocles> I'm back!
[16:07] <creation> so we see :)
[16:08] <Damocles> Well, that was diappointing.  I reviewed 
some of the web pages for this channel and learned 
that people are trying to use the classical Christanic 
mythologies to justify their belief in the occult. 
 That's little different than 

cracking open a Wonder Woman comic book and demanding 
Wonder Woman exists, you know.
[16:08] <roy-> i should apologize to pmantis...in my 
going in and out ....i thought he was the one denying 
the unity of God
[16:09] <Orwell> whooo hooo.
[16:09] <Damocles> I had hoped for a RATIONAL excuse.
[16:09] <creation> Damocles:  You have no idea what you 
are talking about.  You obviously didnt go to the right 
web page.
[16:09] st_aidan (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[16:09] Mode change '+o st_aidan ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[16:09] <roy-> yes i am cannibal...yourself?
[16:09] Nick change: st_aidan -> Acolyte
[16:09] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Cannibal[slip54.vianet.net.au]
[16:09] <Orwell> creation: He's saying that y'all can't 
really convince him with the Bible.
[16:10] <Damocles> crea: Hang on... Let me check the 
URL.
[16:10] <Damocles> crea http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.htm
[16:10] <Damocles> crea: Did I write it down wrong?
[16:10] <creation> Orwell:  I really can't convince anyone 
:)
[16:10] <Acolyte> yes you did
[16:11] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[16:11] <Acolyte> html
[16:11] <creation> Damocles:  Did you read anything? 
 Did you go to the Links?  If so, what did you read 
and what links?
[16:11] <Damocles> orw: I don't need to be convinced... 
I'm looking to see where the "rational" demand comes 
into the justification of deity beliefs.
[16:11] <Cannibal> roy-, time out problem :(
[16:11] <Orwell> Damocles: Ah.
[16:11] <creation> Damocles:  What makes a deity belief 
irrational?
[16:11] <Cannibal> roy-, what was your question?
[16:11] <Orwell> Damocles: I agree, "rational theism" is 
an obvious oxymoron.
[16:11] <Damocles> crea: I saw a lot of quotes from the 
classical Christanic mythologies.  I had hoped for 
something rational, not anonymous forgeries.  Alas.
[16:12] <creation> Orwell:  ????
[16:12] <Orwell> Considering that theism requires faith.
[16:12] <Acolyte> Creation Icarus has some kewl links 
to Planting and others
[16:12] <Acolyte> creatin Plantinga etc
[16:12] <Orwell> And faith is fundamentally irrational.
[16:12] <Damocles> crea: What makes deity beliefs irrational? 
 How about the lack of evidence for the existance of 
deity constructs outside of the imagination?
[16:12] <creation> Acolyte:  yeah, that is what I saw. 
 I guess Damocles must have missed it.
[16:13] <creation> Damocles:  Prove to me that a belief 
in the existance of God is one that requires evidence 
in order ot be rational.
[16:13] <Damocles> orwel: Thanks for your support.  <smirk> 
 I find little problem with believers in the occult 
admitting that they do so out of faith.  When I see 
someone pretend thay believe in deity constructs out 
of rationality, then I h

ave to wonder who they're trying to fool.
[16:13] <Cannibal> deity constructs sound like fun :)
[16:13] <Acolyte> damcoles there are a number of essays 
linekd to that page frm world renouned Philosophers, 
you shuld have done yourself a favor and read some 
of them
[16:13] <Acolyte> orwell bs
[16:13] <roy-> cannibal i asked if you were christian 
also
[16:13] Action: creation agrees with acolyte
[16:13] <Orwell> acolyte: Oh"?
[16:13] <Acolyte> ray he's an atheist
[16:13] <Acolyte> orwell yes, faith is not fiedism for 
one
[16:13] <Orwell> acolyte: Mind elaborating?
[16:14] <Acolyte> orwell fideism even
[16:14] <Cannibal> roy-, no, I am atheist. I thought 
that was clear from many comments I have made.
[16:14] <Damocles> crea: Do the same: Prove to me that 
the belief in invisible pink elephants needs evidence 
to be considered rational.
[16:14] <Acolyte> orwell do you know the difference between 
trust and fideism?
[16:14] <Acolyte> Damcolcles easy, its not a foundational 
belief
[16:14] <Orwell> acolyte: Yes.
[16:14] <roy-> cannibal ...sorry ...i was gone for awhile
[16:14] <Orwell> "Foundational" belief?
[16:14] <Damocles> aco: Philosophers...  No, I was looking 
for evidence for the existance of deity constructs, 
not statements of belief in the occult.
[16:14] <Cannibal> roy-, that's ok mate :)
[16:15] <creation> Damocles:  The belief in a pink elephant 
isn't a proper basic belief and is not necessary for 
rationality.
[16:15] <Acolyte> \orweel we hold to trust/faith, not 
to fideism
[16:15] <Acolyte> orwell are you familair with Epistemological 
Foundationalism?
[16:15] <Orwell> Acolyte: Vaguely.
[16:16] <Acolyte> Damocles, are not rational arguments 
evidence? besides,you need to show that evidentialism 
is the method by which we measure the rationality fo 
beleifs. which you have yet to do
[16:16] <Damocles> aco: "foundational belief..."  It's 
an unevidenced claim just like claims of deity constructs. 
 There is no difference between the belief in invisible 
pink elephants and invisible deities.


[16:16] <Cannibal> creation, what if the invisible etc... 
possesses attributes such as omnipresence, omnipotence, 
omniscience, aseity, ....
[16:16] <Acolyte> orwell some beleifs are basci to a 
structure
[16:16] <Damocles> crea: Certainly it is.  Invisible 
pink elephants aren't evidenced.  Deity constructs 
aren't evidenced.  They are equally irrational.
[16:16] <Orwell> Ah.
[16:16] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca13-10.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #Apologetics.
[16:17] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca13-10.ix.netcom.com) 
left #Apologetics.
[16:17] <Damocles> aco: I'm _waiting_ for a rational 
argument for the existance of deity constructs.  That 
requires evidence, not statements of occult beliefs.
[16:17] <Acolyte> Damcoles sure, I don't hold to pink 
elepahnts, sho me how my contructs is not rational
[16:17] <Acolyte> damocles do you have evidence for logic?
[16:17] <Acolyte> damocles not all beleifs need evidence 
to be held as rrational
[16:17] <creation> Damocles:  The belief in pink elephants 
is not a prerequisite to knowledge.
[16:17] <Orwell> As repeatability is to science.
[16:17] <Orwell> acolyte: woo woo...
[16:17] <creation> Cannibal:  A rose by any other name 
is still a rose.
[16:17] <Damocles> aco: You're now trying to demand that 
physical reality isn't everything.  That's a positive 
claim on your part.  Have any evidence for that claim?
[16:18] <Cannibal> Acolyte, what exactly do you conceive 
logic to be?
[16:18] <Acolyte> damcoles, what is the ontological referent 
for logic in your system?
[16:18] <Acolyte> Damocles sure, the laws of logic
[16:18] <Acolyte> cannibal oh you don't know by now?
[16:18] <Cannibal> creation, is Allah the same as your 
God then?
[16:18] <Orwell> acolyte: so why is NOT believing in 
deity constructs irrational?
[16:18] <Cannibal> Acolyte, it is always worth while 
to define your terms if you can.
[16:18] <creation> Cannibal:  The concept is not the 
same as my concept.
[16:19] <Damocles> aco: Such as the belief in aliens 
in flying saucers.  Does your illogic then demand that 
all the books written about flying saucers are rational?
[16:19] <Orwell> It's simply not believing in things 
that can not be sensed.
[16:19] <roy-> Damocles why do you look for proofs on 
a web page for existence of God...look at yourself 
and round about you at the things that are made...the 
problem isnot that its illogical that there was no 
creator but God says that which is kn

own about God can be clearly seen..your trouble is 
your suppress the truth in unrighteousness
[16:19] <Acolyte> orweel no bassif or logic, actually 
they are non-rational, htey lack a paradigm that provides 
for rationality
[16:19] <Acolyte> orwel can you sense ideas? ge guess 
they don't exist, catagory fallacy
[16:19] <Cannibal> creation, does that mean that many 
gods can form the basis for rationality as you conceive 
it to be?
[16:19] <Orwell> Acolyte: Huh? I sense ideas fine.
[16:19] <creation> Cannibal:  simply put, no
[16:19] <Damocles> going once...
[16:19] <Damocles> going twice...
[16:19] <Damocles> all: Thanks for playing.  As usual 
the side of reason wins.
[16:19] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics.
[16:19] <Acolyte> damcocles surely UFO's are not the 
issyue here, are UFO material or formal?
[16:20] <Acolyte> orweel when did you SMELL an IDEA last?
[16:20] <Orwell> Acolyte: Is smell the only idea?
[16:20] <Orwell> er
[16:20] <Orwell> xcuse me
[16:20] <Orwell> the only sense?
[16:20] <Orwell> Is taste?
[16:20] <Orwell> Is touch?
[16:20] <Orwell> Is sight?
[16:20] <Cannibal> creation, what exactly is required 
for a god to supply the basis of rationality (as you 
see rationality).
[16:20] <creation> Cannibal:  ONe that IS rational?
[16:20] <Acolyte> orwell that is not what I asked
[16:20] <Acolyte> orweel can you SENSE an idea? NO, you 
don't SEE THEM, you don't SMELL THEM or taste them 
ect
[16:21] <Cannibal> creation, is that a deliberate circular 
statement, or just an error on your part?
[16:21] <Acolyte> orwell you THINK them, they are formal, 
not material
[16:21] <Orwell> acolyte: I perceive them. End of story.
[16:21] <roy-> You assume our reasoning ability is unbiased 
creation....the bible says it is not
[16:21] <Acolyte> brb
[16:21] <Orwell> Aco: you still haven't answered MY question.
[16:21] <Cannibal> creation, which is prior (logically 
speaking) rationality or deity?
[16:21] <Orwell> Aco: Why is nonbelief irrational?
[16:22] <Acolyte> orwell which is?
[16:22] <roy-> oops i meant cannibal...sorry creation
[16:22] <Acolyte> cannibal they are eternal
[16:22] <creation> Cannibal:  both are one and the same. 
  
[16:22] <Cannibal> Acolyte, rationality is eternal?
[16:22] <roy-> they are both eternal cannibal
[16:22] <Acolyte> orwell I answered that already
[16:22] <Cannibal> creation, rationality is god?
[16:22] <Acolyte> cannibal because Truth is eternal
[16:23] <Orwell> *orweel no bassif or logic, actually 
they are non-rational, htey lack a paradigm that provides 
for rationality
[16:23] <Cannibal> Acolyte, the eternity of truth \is 
a foundational assumption?
[16:23] <Orwell> oops...shoulda been *acolyte...
[16:23] <Orwell> No basis or logic?
[16:23] <creation> Cannibal:  Was there a time when truth 
did not exist?
[16:23] <Orwell> Scientific method.
[16:23] <Acolyte> Orwell they are non-rational paradigms 
on their OWN, in Christian system they are contradictory, 
they deny the necessary preconditions for reason, hence 
they make knowldge impossible
[16:24] <Cannibal> creation, was there a time when time 
did not exist?
[16:24] <Orwell> Acolyte: How so?
[16:24] <Acolyte> orwell Atheisttic naturalism makes 
science impossible
[16:24] <Orwell> aco: How so?
[16:24] <creation> Cannibal:  Answer the question.
[16:24] <creation> Cannibal:  It is quite simple.
[16:24] <Cannibal> creation, you answer mine
[16:24] <Acolyte> orweel how does one groudn the assumptions 
of science? say in the principle of induction? how 
does one jusify the prin of inductin based on expereince? 
uou can't do it
[16:24] <Orwell> whoa...
[16:25] <Orwell> turn the light on, man...
[16:25] <Acolyte> Cannibla sure, time was created
[16:25] <Cannibal> creation, is your god time bound?
[16:25] <creation> Cannibal:  No
[16:25] <Acolyte> Cannibal is truth time bound?
[16:25] <creation> Cannibal:  He is atemporal
[16:25] <Orwell> Acolyte: You can ground them in many 
things. The most basic is that the physical universe 
is guided by a set of fundamental forces or laws.
[16:26] <roy-> why should a creator be bound by his creation 
cannibal?
[16:26] <Cannibal> creation, truth may not be spoken 
of outside of the confines of the proper objects of 
human investigation.
[16:26] <Acolyte> orweel I knwo that , but those laws 
are based on the sci method which is base don the principle 
of indiction, how do you justify the principle of induction?
[16:26] <creation> Cannibal:  So you need humans for 
there to be truthy???
[16:26] <Acolyte> truthy???? heheheh
[16:26] <Cannibal> roy-, the question was for a purpose.
[16:26] <creation> Cannibal:  So, without humans 2 + 
2=4 would not be true??
[16:26] <Acolyte> cannibal why  would anyone trust the 
conclusion of a computer tha had no design?
[16:27] <Cannibal> creation, for you (a human) to discuss 
truth you need humans :)
[16:27] <Acolyte> cannibal why trust your brain?
[16:27] <Acolyte> canibal circualr argument
[16:27] <Orwell> Acolyte: What is your definition of 
"the principle of induction?"
[16:27] <creation> Cannibal:  For the DISCUSSION of truth. 
 Not the existance there of.
[16:27] <Acolyte> cannibal so was therea  time when there 
was no truth?
[16:27] <Cannibal> creation, you would not know 2 + 2 
= 4 if there were no humans.
[16:27] <creation> Cannibal:  it doesn't depend on my 
knowing.
[16:27] <Acolyte> orwell the standard one that Hume discusses 
try reading Hume on it
[16:27] <Acolyte> creation excellent
[16:28] <Cannibal> creation, how do you know that?
[16:28] <roy-> good point creation
[16:28] <Orwell> Acolyte: Just tell me your interpretation.
[16:28] <Acolyte> orwell hold on a sec
[16:28] <Cannibal> creation, isn't it an assumption on 
your part?
[16:28] <creation> Cannibal:  Did 2+2=4 when I didn't 
exist?
[16:28] <Acolyte> orwell the BRB someo at the door
[16:29] <Cannibal> creation, that is not the question 
:)
[16:29] <creation> Cannibal:  Just answer it and you 
will see my point.
[16:29] <Cannibal> creation, how do YOU know that 2 + 
2 = 4.
[16:29] <creation> Cannibal:  hmmmmm, grade school lesson. 
 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.
[16:30] <Cannibal> creation, how do YOPU know that that 
is always true?
[16:30] <creation> Cannibal:  Is there a time that you 
know of that 2+2=4 is not true?
[16:31] <Orwell> creation: When everyone believes it 
is 5.
[16:31] <Cannibal> creation, my point is that in your 
experience it is evidence (grade school apples) that 
teaches you that 2 + 2 = 4.
[16:31] <Acolyte> hey I am eating, brb in a few miniutes
[16:31] <creation> Orwell:  Does the belief in something 
make it true?
[16:31] <Orwell> creation: This is right up my ally...read 
1984
[16:31] <roy-> truth exists before we come into cognicant 
contact with it cannibal...
[16:31] <Acolyte> cannibal judgements are a priori btw
[16:31] <Acolyte> BRB
[16:32] <Orwell> creation: Ask yourself that.
[16:32] <Cannibal> roy-, that my friend is an assumption.
[16:32] <creation> Orwell:  ask myself what?
[16:32] <Cannibal> Acolyte, category fallacy are too 
:)
[16:32] <creation> Orwell: you wrote 1984?
[16:33] <creation> Orwell:  It is a logical assumption. 
 Show that assumption to be falty.
[16:33] <Acolyte> cannibal, was there a time when there 
was no truth? yes or no?
[16:33] <Orwell> creation: uh.
[16:33] <Orwell> creation: My namesake did :-D
[16:33] <roy-> you presume that because truth is eterenal 
that we dont have to be taught it...where do you get 
that presupposition
[16:33] <roy-> oops eternal
[16:34] <Acolyte> roy we don't say that
[16:34] <Acolyte> roy the basis or structure of logix 
is in our heards, beaus it is in ALL Reality, rocks 
are not non-rocks at the same time
[16:34] <Orwell> creation: Positive statement. Need evidence.
[16:34] <Cannibal> Acolyte, possibly, there was a time 
(grin) when time started. Theyre may be no truth now.
[16:35] <Acolyte> i am eating brb
[16:35] <roy-> im not talking about truth of god which 
all men know acolyte...but about facts of his creation...we 
have to learn to talk and understand the language before 
we can read and listen ...so the same with math truths
[16:35] <creation> Orwell:  Ok, answer the question, 
was there a time when there was no truth?
[16:35] <Cannibal> Acolyte, if by truth you mean a proposition 
that is a tautology, perhaps such has existed for all 
of time.
[16:36] <Orwell> creation: I have no idea.
[16:36] <Orwell> Ecc 8 17
[16:36] <Orwell> ;-)
[16:36] <Acolyte> roy god knew before
[16:37] <Acolyte> cannibal Truth Exists, was that ever 
false?
[16:37] onevoice (AZhawk@dd07-095.compuserve.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[16:37] <Cannibal> creation, does your knowledge of "truth" 
come from your experience, teaching, and authorty that 
you accept?
[16:37] <creation> Orwell:  You don't know?
[16:37] <Orwell> creation: Of course not. Neither do 
you, really.
[16:37] <Cannibal> Acolyte, Time exists has that ever 
been false?
[16:38] <Acolyte> Canibal yes
[16:38] <creation> Orwell:  yes, I do.
[16:38] <Cannibal> Acolyte, yes too
[16:38] <Acolyte> cannial knowledge comes form the mnd, 
not experience
[16:38] <Orwell> creation: It makes life easier if we 
assume the answer to be yess.
[16:38] <Acolyte> Cannibla so truth is timebound?
[16:38] <creation> Orwell:  No assumption.
[16:38] <Orwell> creation: Bah.
[16:38] <creation> Orwll:  Bah
[16:38] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) left irc: Is 
there no beauty in truth?
[16:39] <roy-> my mother was my mother before i could 
say mama....but the actual learning of the truth to 
us humans came through other humans ...ie.my mother
[16:39] <creation> bye orwell
[16:39] <Cannibal> perhaps :)
[16:39] <Cannibal> Acolyte, our ability of know truth 
is time bound.
[16:39] <creation> Cannibal:  How does truth depend on 
our knowing.
[16:39] <Cannibal> a point of clarification know, truth, 
etc are used by me with a meaning that is close to 
the word utility.
[16:40] <creation> Cannibal:  so, if you can't use it 
it isn't truth, know, etc?
[16:40] <onevoice> truth is a noun, cann
[16:40] <creation> Cannibal:  Please elaborate.
[16:40] <Cannibal> Acolyte, you are assuming that truth 
has an exustence of its own.
[16:40] <creation> Cannibal:  That is right.
[16:41] <Acolyte> cannibal ideas don't
[16:41] <Acolyte> canibal ideas come from thinkers, if 
I hav an eternal idea, I have to have an eternal thinker 
to think it
[16:41] <Cannibal> Acolyte, is that a statement or a 
question?
[16:41] <Acolyte> cannibal what happens when your pragmatism 
does not work? is it true then?
[16:41] <Acolyte> cannabal a statement
[16:41] <Cannibal> Acolyte, has it ever not worked?
[16:42] <Cannibal> Acolyte, lets clarify this. Do ideas 
have an independent existence?
[16:43] <Acolyte> cannibal no
[16:43] <Cannibal> Acolyte, do they depend on God?
[16:43] <Acolyte> cannibal everything depends on god
[16:43] <Cannibal> ok
[16:43] DCline (DCline@dial15.vonl.com) joined #Apologetics.
[16:43] <Acolyte> cannibal otherwise turht is a mere 
convention
[16:44] <Acolyte> truth even
[16:44] <DCline> Hi all:)
[16:44] <creation> hello DCline
[16:44] <roy-> hello dcline
[16:44] <DCline> Any topic today?
[16:45] <DCline> Exactly what is "Rational Theism?"
[16:45] <creation> Christianity for one.
[16:45] <DCline> Ah...now you're talking:)
[16:46] <creation> Cannibal:  you there?
[16:46] <roy-> cannibal the bible says you see clearly 
that what is known about God is cleary seen through 
his creation..dont you think the beauty around you 
is someones idea?
[16:47] <creation> Is there a split?
[16:47] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Cannibal[slip54.vianet.net.au]
=============================================================
[22:41] maya (maya@dial20.e-tex.com) joined #Apologetics.
[22:41] <newsong> what'd ya suppose is the deal with 
Shost's
[22:42] <Pergolesi> what happened newsong?
[22:42] <Pergolesi> ouch!
[22:42] <Pergolesi> I think he's playing Doom
[22:42] <Pergolesi> yes I am
[22:42] <newsong> major....netsplit
[22:43] <newsong> oh brother....I thought he was a jewell
[22:43] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[22:43] <newsong> (now that's sarcasm)
[22:43] <Cani> hello
[22:43] <newsong> cani...hello
[22:43] <maya> hi cani..
[22:44] <maya> any topic going on?
[22:44] <newsong> nope.....Perg..is lost somewhere
[22:45] <newsong> not heard from Shost's...
[22:45] <Cani> i have a theological question...
[22:45] <Pergolesi> one or both of us has major lag i 
think
[22:45] <maya> maybe in Perg  atory
[22:45] <newsong> ok.....
[22:45] <maya> yes cani
[22:45] <newsong> ohh.....maya...b careful....Perg. is 
pretty sensitive
[22:45] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-179.netzone.com) 
left irc: 
[22:46] <maya> sorry... only kidding
[22:46] <maya> :}
[22:46] <newsong> told ya
[22:46] <newsong> he may be back.....
[22:46] <Cani> Isn't there an inherent conflict between 
God's omnipotence and His need for worship?
[22:46] <newsong> He liked my chocolate cake
[22:46] <Cani> Are they not incompatible?
[22:46] <maya> the only conflict is the human creation 
of the concepts of omnipotence and worship
[22:46] <newsong> well....don't lay a statement like 
that on us....and then expect me to jump in without 
figuring out what prompted such a statement
[22:47] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) got netsplit.
[22:47] <maya> sorry... i am bad about cutting gordian 
knots...
[22:47] <Cani> It was a question put to me...now I put 
it to you... no hostility intended
[22:48] <maya> none occured to me
[22:48] <maya> how did you answer, cani?
[22:48] <Cani> Ok I refine my question.... isn't there 
a conflict between the human concept of worship and 
the human conception of omnipotence?
[22:49] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) returned to 
#Apologetics.
[22:49] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-179.netzone.com) 
joined #Apologetics.
[22:49] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) left #apologetics.
[22:49] <Cani> I was unable to answer...
[22:50] <Pergolesi> hello newsong
[22:50] <Cani> But the question seems difficult to me... 

[22:50] <Cani> to me, omnipotence implies total completeness, 
without needs or even the capability to want...
[22:50] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) joined #apologetics.
[22:50] Cassidy (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-05.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[22:50] <maya> In my opinion..... all dualistic concepts 
of god... and the traits attrributed to god are meaningless. 
  like asking .. what would happen if on fell off the 
earth   would it be into water... or into fire.?
[22:50] Mode change '+o Cassidy ' by W!cservice@undernet.org
[22:50] <newsong> kinda like when Jesus comes back again...all 
the Christians will just...disappear!!!
[22:51] <Pergolesi> hello newsong
[22:51] <maya> someone said, "God created man in His own 
image.... and Man has been returning the favor ever 
since.."
[22:51] <newsong> maya...cani...pergo...
[22:51] <newsong> I knew you'd come back for chocolate 
cake...Perg...
[22:51] <Cassidy> maya...meaningless...or just unanswerable?
[22:52] <Pergolesi> yes, after I finished lagging :)
[22:53] <maya> for me the question is meaningless because 
the idea or concept of god as a being or divine entity, 
separate from anything... is an anthropomorphic creation 
of the human mind.
[22:53] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Cani[ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com]
[22:53] <newsong> hello Perg.....
[22:53] <newsong> I said...I knew you'd be back for chocolate 
cake and coffee
[22:53] <Pergolesi> hello
[22:54] <newsong> maya....you need 50c for coffee???
[22:54] <Pergolesi> maya why do you believe that the 
concept of god is an anthropomorphic creation of man
[22:54] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:54] <Cassidy> maya..."for you"? I always wonder when 
that term is used these days. For me, it is not. Are 
both our systems equally valid? Or do we proceed to 
attempt to give evidence respectivly?
[22:55] <maya> because I believe that the Infinite, Divine 
Spirit is none other that Infinite Consciousness.... 

[22:55] <newsong> oh brother.....................
[22:55] Shostakov (shoubeck@pm095-13.dialip.mich.net) 
left irc: Ping timeout for Shostakov[pm095-13.dialip.mich.net]
[22:55] Action: newsong is rolling on the floor laughing 
at the entertainment
[22:55] <Pergolesi> so there is no entity beyond man?
[22:56] <maya> good response, newsong..
[22:56] <Cani> Doesn't consciousness imply a progression 
of thought, though?
[22:56] <Cassidy> maya...now one might respond that, 
if our belief is a human construct, then THAT is just 
as much a human construct.
[22:56] <maya> even man is not a separate entity
[22:57] <Cani> And how can an all-knowing consciousness 
have any progression of thought? If it is already complete 
in EVERY way?
[22:57] <Cassidy> maya...interesting. How are we "united"?
[22:57] <maya> yes, cassidy... we are limlited to finite 
words and concepts here.... so making sense of this 
is not likely
[22:57] <newsong> Apolobot...must be busted!!
[22:57] <maya> we are united because we are all a manifestation 
of One spirit..  or Infinite consciousness.
[22:58] <Pergolesi> quit freaking bot!
[22:58] <maya> maybe it fell on the floor too, newsong
[22:58] <newsong> Perg...did you break the bot???
[22:58] <newsong> hehehehehe maya...good line
[22:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[22:59] <Cassidy> do this finite language allow us to 
know *anything* about god/conciousness? obviously it 
has allowed you to have negative knowledge about the 
metaphysical "realm"...why not positive??
[22:59] <Pergolesi> do you offer any evidence of this 
claim?
[22:59] Action: Pergolesi gave the Bot chocolate cake 
and coffee
[22:59] <newsong> hehehehe...Perg....I like you
[23:00] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Cani[ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com]
[23:00] <newsong> But, of course, in the sense of Paul's 
writing what is real and eternal is not what we see 
with our eyes....
[23:00] <maya> actually no finite language can describe 
this... It is Intuitive knowledge or  a state of awakeness.... 
it is more an experience or a state of being than a 
body of knowledge that can be passed on
[23:00] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[23:01] <Cassidy> maya....you deny our claims about god 
as meaningless...but somehow your claims are exempt 
from the rules that negated ours. How does that work?>??
[23:01] <maya> right... the unseen is eternal... or infinite
[23:01] <newsong> of course not...no finite language 
can describe the state that you speak of..... maya
[23:01] <newsong> no human tongue can attempt to describe 
or ascribe who God is.....
[23:01] <maya> No... I understand that my descriptions 
are also meaningless... but ... what does one do when 
we are limited to words?
[23:01] <Pergolesi> Deep thoughts by Jack Handy: I think 
that ping timeouts are th
[23:02] <Pergolesi> oops!
[23:02] <newsong> maya....perhaps......it could be called....Speaking 
on Tongues
[23:02] Action: Pergolesi 's dog just attacked him
[23:03] <newsong> For one who speaks in an unknown tongue 
speaks not to men but to God....for no one understands 
or catches his meaning, because in the Holy Spirit 
he utters secret truths and hidden things not obvious 
to the understanding
[23:03] <newsong> I Cor 14:2
[23:03] <Cassidy> maya...OH! yours are meaningless too. 
yet, you spoke of this universal consciousness as if 
it had meaning! please, if these things are meaningless, 
why is it we continue to entertain them as if they 
weren't??
[23:04] <Pergolesi> pray
[23:04] <maya> I can only say i "intuit"  this.... there 
is no proof,  no authority. and no validification  
 unless one experiences it one's self
[23:05] <newsong> Perg....great line
[23:06] <maya> pray for what perg?
[23:06] <Pergolesi> insight, wisdom
[23:07] <Cassidy> maya....I can name 10 people off the 
top of my head that would clain that there is also 
no way to verify the Christian paradigm. They ALSO 
claim an "intuition" or innate/divine knowledge of God

. What makes yours more credible?
[23:07] <maya> the universal consciouness does not have 
meaning...cass.
[23:07] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[23:07] <newsong> does that bot work yet Perg???
[23:07] <Pergolesi> hello J
[23:07] <jharrell> good evening all
[23:07] <maya> Im not trying to sell anything.... Its 
just my paradigm
[23:07] <Cassidy> hey jh!
[23:07] <newsong> ok...long hand.....here it is Eph 1 
17
[23:09] <newsong> For I always pray the God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, that He may grant 
you a spirit of wisdom and revelation - of insight 
ito mysteries and secrets - in the deep and intimate 
knowledge of Him...
[23:09] <newsong> finally Apolo
[23:10] <Pergolesi> bot is experiencing chocolate lag
[23:10] <jharrell> What is the topic?
[23:10] <jharrell> :-)
[23:10] <Cassidy> maya....I know your not. however, I 
am interested to know why you feel your intuitive knowledge 
of God/consciousness is any more credible or trustworthy 
than the next guy.
[23:10] <newsong> but Perg....it wasn't even Hershey's 
chocolate....
[23:10] <Pergolesi> we are talking about the limits of 
knowledge and the relativity of conscious experience...I 
think?
[23:11] <Pergolesi> Newsong: it was Ghirardelli Chocolate...the 
bot had no chance
[23:11] <newsong> ok...here's Eph 1:18....long hand...amplified 
bible
[23:12] <maya> I have been an ordained minister for forty 
years... have three degrees in theology.... and  yet... 
when I began to find the mystical teachings of the 
orient... i sensed that I was closer to truth...
[23:13] <newsong> By having the eyes of your heart flooded 
with light so that you can know and understand the 
hope to which He has called you and how rich is His 
glorious inheritance in the saints..His set-apart ones
[23:14] <jharrell> Maya: How so?
[23:14] <newsong> maya....40 years....how sad...it is 
obvious you never knew Jesus....
[23:15] <Pergolesi> Maya: perhaps you grew to understand 
God a way different from Western culture
[23:15] <maya> I cannot really explain........ and newsense...please 
dont judge what you know nothing about.
[23:15] <Cassidy> maya...I sensed I was close to truth 
when I dropped a hit of purple micro-dot (LSD) and 
every time I changed denominations. Feelings of truth 
come and go as the seasons.
[23:15] <newsong> (pssssttt....Perg...Ghirardelli chocolate..that 
explains it.....)
[23:15] <jharrell> Maya: as we seek to understand it 
is helpful to understand that Jesus was a person of 
the orient not of the west
[23:16] <Pergolesi> Maya: but the God of the Jews and 
of Christians claims sole possession of a man's loyalty. 
 It must be either true or false.
[23:16] <Cassidy> maya....I think your feeling of truth 
may be nothing mmore than a conditional affect of your 
new studies. I've seen it happen to Christians too 
(as Im sure you also have).
[23:16] <maya> yes... and I think he was what we call 
a mystic... but since his followers are not.... he 
is not readily understood
[23:16] <Bon> a mystic?
[23:16] <maya> new studies.... I have been pursuing this 
for over 20 years...
[23:16] <maya> yes... one who intuits or knows (directly) 
that "the father and I are one"
[23:16] <Cassidy> even mystical devotion is no more than 
fat on the bones of reason.
[23:17] <maya> reason is not a good tool of the spirit
[23:17] <newsong> ok....long hand.....For while Jews 
(demandingly) ask for signs and miracles and Greeks 
pursue philosophy and wisdom... We preach Christ, the 
Messiah, crucified, which to the Jews is a scandal 
and an offensive stumblinb block..and

 to the Gentiles
[23:17] <jharrell> Maya: I wouldn't use the word "mystic" 
, for some it carries connotations that I would not 
apply to Jesus. Perhaps "deeply spiritual" - in a way 
that many f

ail to recognize?
[23:17] <newsong> .....Gentiles...it is unphilosophical 
nonsense....
[23:17] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) left #apologetics.
[23:17] <maya> Mystic mean only the realization of oneness.
[23:18] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) joined #apologetics.
[23:18] <Bon> re newsong
[23:18] <newsong> yo Bon.........
[23:18] <Pergolesi> Maya: I believe that we can not hardly 
perceive the complexity of God and His Spirit, yet 
we can claim to have some insight.
[23:18] <Cassidy> A falling out from one system and a 
fresh introduction to another is a sure recipe for 
such mystical surity. Also, the mystical approach is 
sooooo much easier! No more questions. just soft abandonment 
in one direction.
[23:18] <maya> the complexity cannot be "perceived"   complexity 
is created by the confusion  and logc of the human 
mind
[23:18] <newsong> Thanks you Jesus....for I will see 
you one day...face to face!!!!
[23:18] <maya> Spirit is simple.. It is the all
[23:18] <newsong> bot on chocolate again!!!!!
[23:18] <Pergolesi> ack bot freaking again
[23:18] <Bon> good crayzee bot
[23:18] <newsong> quick...feed the bot a coke!!!!
[23:18] <Pergolesi> trix are for kids, silly bot
[23:18] <Bon> hehehe
[23:18] <Bon> will dr pepper do?
[23:19] <newsong> do it long hand Perg....
[23:19] Action: Bon does the lumber mil shuffle
[23:19] <newsong> bon...lumber mil....you in lumber????
[23:19] <maya> I realize my views create more heat than 
light... but how does rational logic etc. communicate 
the taste of .. say, an orange?
[23:19] <Bon> newsong .. um no :)  but I worked in a 
mill one summer!
[23:19] <Pergolesi> 1 Cor 13 12 Perg paraphrase...we 
see in a mirror dimly---but we do see and can know 
enough to place faith in the Almighty God
[23:19] <Cassidy> without a standard of logic, the word 
"confusion" in unintelligable. How is it that you identify 
your feelings of trust and truth for your system if 
not by a mental ccatagories that can be trus

ted as reliable??
[23:19] <Pergolesi> Amen Bot
[23:19] <newsong> ....oh...bon i'm a salesmen for a building 
trade wholesaler...that's why I asked
[23:19] <jharrell> Maya: May I ask - what part of oriental 
philosophy has appealed to you?
[23:19] <maya> Logic is an inadequate tool for knowing 
spirit.... 
[23:19] <Bon> aaah.  
[23:19] <newsong> Everything appeals to Maya....except 
Jesus
[23:19] <jharrell> Newsong: Awfully judgemental aren't 
we?
[23:19] <newsong> finlly...the coke did it...(or was 
it the Dr Pepper)
[23:20] <newsong> hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....awfully?
[23:20] <Pergolesi> I also have been enriched by Oriental 
philosophy, but it has deepened my understanding of 
God, instead of focusing on creation
[23:20] <Bon> :)
[23:20] <maya> is not creation an expression of "god"?
[23:20] <newsong> God created!!!
[23:20] <Pergolesi> Yes, but often men worship the creation 
instead of the creator.
[23:21] <newsong> yep
[23:21] <Cassidy> maya...and spirit is an inadequite 
tool for knowing period. Maya....at some point you 
stood at the wall of reason....and just decided to 
go over it. I wonder at your purposes for even discussing 
metaphysics of ANY kind anymore. I

 wonder.
[23:21] <newsong> good point Perg
[23:21] <maya> Is not creation the unfolding of spirit... 
the creation of the idea of a separate god is the worship 
of idols
[23:21] <Cassidy> maya...what church were you a pastor 
of?
[23:21] <maya> concepts can be idols too
[23:21] Action: newsong high 5's Perg.
[23:22] <newsong> 1st church of the Refrigerator
[23:22] <maya> may I ask why you ask?
[23:22] <Cassidy> new...old joke.
[23:22] <Pergolesi> Concepts can be idols, we must turn 
our focus to God (and not put God in a convenient box)
[23:22] <newsong> cass...but the shoe fits
[23:22] <maya> but the concept of god is a box
[23:23] <jharrell> Newsong: What's with the attitude?
[23:23] <Pergolesi> for whom?
[23:23] <Cassidy> maya...just interest. background take 
the mundaneness out of a purely text based conversation. 
Im not gonna contact them or anything!!! ;)
[23:23] <newsong> jharrell...there you go again....
[23:23] <maya> a concept is reducing the infinite down 
to a maneageable box... so we can have understanding 
and control
[23:23] <Cassidy> newsong...it's"church of the frigidare"
[23:23] <newsong> ok...cass....good point
[23:23] <maya> I have been retired for two years...
[23:24] <newsong> thank God!!!!
[23:24] <Bon> cassidy is the modern day campfire.
[23:24] <Bon> newsong hehe
[23:24] <newsong> bon :)
[23:24] <Pergolesi> so maya, how do we let God be God, 
not what we want
[23:24] <Cassidy> Bon is like asprin without the severe 
stomach upset!!
[23:24] <Bon> Cassidy is a better man than I never was
[23:25] <Bon> ( I hope)
[23:25] Action: Cassidy is half the man you ever weren't...?!? 
(hmmmmm...)
[23:25] <Bon> Cassidy is a lot like elvis, minus the 
drug problem  
[23:25] <maya> Im only saying that we have intuited the 
Infinite spirit within... but have projected it outward... 
belived we are separate from it... and called it "God>"
[23:25] <Bon> and he cant sing too well
[23:26] <newsong> God is a HIM.....
[23:26] <Bon> the infinite spirit within?
[23:26] <newsong> God is a Person
[23:26] <Bon> god is aperson?
[23:26] <newsong> God is the Father...God the Son...God 
the Holy Spirit
[23:26] <Bon> aaaaah  the trinity :)
[23:26] <newsong> Basic Christian Doctrine....(maybe 
that's the problem)
[23:26] <maya> within is an awkward word.... actually 
there is not in or out with the spirit
[23:26] <Cassidy> Bon is popular among alcoholics, insomniacs, 
truck-drivers, and those with a tendency toward deviant 
social behavior.
[23:26] Action: Bon believes in the trinity but thinks 
God is a LITTLE bit more complicated than that :)
[23:27] <Bon> cassidy  unfortunately that is true %-)
[23:27] <Cassidy> oooof~
[23:27] <Pergolesi> Maya, I think that we are much alike 
in our thought regarding the lack of understanding 
we can have of a spiritual God
[23:27] <Pergolesi> But, do you believe that God has 
revealed Himself to man at all?
[23:27] <Bon> I would agree with that.. but dont think 
God is something inside of me.. if he is   how in the 
heck wuz he talking at Abraham? :)
[23:27] <maya> Yes... understanding is not an adequate 
tool.  
[23:27] <newsong> yes................thru Jesus
[23:28] <Bon> newsong yuppa!
[23:28] <Pergolesi> and His Word!
[23:28] <newsong> Jesus....The Son of God.....Emmanuel....God 
with US
[23:28] <Pergolesi> and the Prophets
[23:28] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
left irc: jharrell
[23:28] <maya> Religious literature is dualistic... 
[23:28] <Cassidy> The two errors: Reason can obtain all 
that is to be known of the eternal......and reason 
can obtain none.
[23:28] <Bon> and the LAW!
[23:28] <newsong> The Prophets spoke of Jesus.....
[23:29] <maya> reason cannot grasp the Infinite..... 
   so the mind tries to reduce it to something one 
can grasp
[23:29] <Pergolesi> yes, but God allows the dual duel 
until He should see fit to overcome...and He will
[23:30] <newsong> But of course....we do not approach 
God thru reason.... we approach Him thru Faith!!!!!
[23:30] <maya> I am acquainted with all the traditional 
Christian myths and traditions..
[23:30] <Bon> hehe 
[23:30] <newsong> maya...you were the pastor...right...
[23:30] <maya> they are more useful for the conventional 
religious mind.
[23:30] <newsong> Hebrews 11:6....long hand...amplified
[23:30] <Pergolesi> what good would it be if God revealed 
more than we could understand...instead he has spoken 
through man to reveal his nature (the best we can understand 
it)
[23:31] <maya> what i am sayin is not "useful"
[23:31] <newsong> But without faith it is impossible 
to please and be satisfactory to Him...
[23:31] <maya> I have faith in the Infinite... but not 
in a concept of "God"
[23:31] <newsong> For whoever would come near to God 
must necessarily believe that God exists and that He 
is the Rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently 
seek Him out...
[23:31] <Cassidy> maya...I believe in innate knowledge. 
I believe we have a concept of the eternal...whatever 
the particular subject be. Else, we would be utterly 
unable to grasp even negative knowledge, such as "it 
(the eternal)

 cannot be grasped". Do you see? we must have a concept 
of a thing to even deny it, or aspects about it.
[23:32] <newsong> and **WHO** is Infinite???
[23:32] <Bon> only One Newsong :)
[23:32] <newsong> Who is your faith in Maya????
[23:32] <maya> concepts are only maps, cass... they point... 
but the map must not be confused with the territory 
it represents...
[23:33] <newsong> God...is God....the opposite of God 
is NOT negative....
[23:34] <maya> that is one of the weakness of christianity 
today... is that believers worship their concepts  
 instead of knowing spirit
[23:34] <newsong> No ....I do not worship a Concept...I 
worship the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords
[23:34] <maya> the rational western mind cannot really 
understand that
[23:34] <newsong> I Worship Jesus.....He is Alive..
[23:36] <Cassidy> ,maya...if the "map" is so wholly transcendant, 
how do you know it exists? What do you have if not 
concepts? These concepts are not in your liver or toe...they 
are in your mind. If our mind is 

on this side of the wall and the eternal is on the 
other...how is it that YOU have a concept that identifies 
it as one thing (the eternal conscousness) and Not 
another (the God of Scripture)????
[23:36] <newsong> Well....my Lord is not a concept...I 
just talked with Him......how does a concept talk???
[23:38] <Cassidy> maya...west makes wrong? 
[23:38] <newsong> How do you talk with your God Maya???
[23:39] <Pergolesi> wow
[23:39] <Pergolesi> cmon bot
[23:40] <newsong> hey...Perg...bot was doing better...needs 
another Coke/Dr. Pepper
[23:40] maya (maya@dial20.e-tex.com) got netsplit.
[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_13_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

