
[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/5/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/5/96

[02:32] NCCSA1862 (NCCSA186@hou-tx8-18.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #Apologetics.
[02:32] Diogenes (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[02:33] <Diogenes> Ah...irrational theism.
[02:33] <NCCSA1862> Diogenes: What's that?
[02:33] RedTango (silver@ip179.lax.primenet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:34] <NCCSA1862> Hello RT
[02:35] <RedTango> hello
[02:35] <RedTango> whew
[02:35] Diogenes (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) 
left #apologetics.
[02:35] Jus1drful (b.jacoby@shark.commerce.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:36] <RedTango> yo
[02:36] <Jus1drful> Hey RedTango, what were you saying 
about sadist?
[02:36] <RedTango> oh, i said God is a sadist
[02:36] <NCCSA1862> RT: God is a sadist. Define your 
terms.
[02:36] <Jus1drful> o.k. why do you think that?
[02:37] <NCCSA1862> we're waiting.
[02:37] <RedTango> He uses eternal torture to punish 
people..and this is supposed to be the ultimate in 
intelligence.
[02:38] <NCCSA1862> RT: I would offer that that sentence 
"God is a sentence" contains a self-referential contradiction, 
and there is absurd, and untrue.
[02:38] <RedTango> what?
[02:38] <RedTango> you lost me there
[02:38] <Jus1drful> Actually, we as individuals make 
the choice to be eternally separated from God.  He 
gives us our wish--whether that be to love Him and 
ask forgiveness, or reject His Son and reject forgiveness.
[02:38] <NCCSA1862> I say that sentence contains a contradiction, 
and is untrue
[02:39] <RedTango> so God isnt a sadist?
[02:39] <NCCSA1862> Correct: here it is:
[02:39] <Jus1drful> He gave us the option through Jesus' 
sacrifice for our sins to be forgiven and be *promised* 
eternal life with Him.
[02:39] <NCCSA1862> Here it is: By "God" is to be understood 
infinite being, increated, having in himself all possiblities 
actualized all at once.
[02:39] <RedTango> Jus, why have hell at all? Why cant 
God accept jews and bhuddists and all the other ways 
the people worship?
[02:40] <NCCSA1862> God is totally without limitations.
[02:40] <RedTango> NCCA, God is a myth
[02:40] <Jus1drful> I'm glad you asked....God is 100% 
holy in nature and cannot be in the presence of sin.
[02:40] <Jus1drful> Sin has separated us from Him.
[02:40] <NCCSA1862> By "Sadist" is understood a particular 
type of being, namely with limitations, e.g. a sadist 
is not a philanthropist.
[02:41] <NCCSA1862> But these terms are mutually contradictory, 
and therefore God cannot be a sadist.
[02:41] <RedTango> NCCA, i beleive God to be a sadistic 
mythological figure.
[02:41] <Jus1drful> God provided a way for us to be forgiven 
of our sins and be cleansed so that we are positionally 
holy in His eyes.
[02:41] <RedTango> Armchair semantics doesnt change anything.
[02:42] <RedTango> Jus, are you married?
[02:42] <Jus1drful> Yes.
[02:42] <NCCSA1862> RT: First, this is not semantics.
[02:42] <RedTango> Do you love your wife?
[02:42] <Jus1drful> Absolutely.
[02:42] Mike_Baun (baun@fat-23.cybergate.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:42] <NCCSA1862> RT: Second, if your definition of 
God includes the following qualities: a) he does not 
exist, or b) he is limited, then:
[02:42] <RedTango> Jus, and you also think that sinners 
can be forgiven and they can go to heaven if they repent, 
no matter what the sin?
[02:43] <NCCSA1862> a) no propositions can be made about 
him at all, or b) he is not really God, and so the 
proposition again fails/
[02:43] <NCCSA1862> I'm just applying some logical rigor 
to your proposals.
[02:43] <Jus1drful> Yes.  Jesus died for *all* sins of 
*all* people on the cross.  Our role is to trust in 
His payment and choose to willingly follow Him.
[02:43] <RedTango> So if you were in Heaven and one of 
these sinners approached you, you would not condemn 
him because he accepted Christ....?
[02:44] <NCCSA1862> RT defaults.
[02:44] <NCCSA1862> Next?
[02:44] <RedTango> NCCA, i do not get into the logical/contradictory 
disccusions where it turns into a mathmatical equation 
trying to cancel another one out...sorry.
[02:44] Yves (yves@199.84.216.49) joined #apologetics.
[02:44] <Jus1drful> No....because only forgiven people 
can goto Heaven.   I'm a sinner, but I have been forgiven.
[02:44] <NCCSA1862> RT: So you don't like thinking logically? 
OK, RT defaults, because he wants to be illogical. 
Next?
[02:45] <Jus1drful> RT: Are you married by any chance?
[02:45] <RedTango> Usually those sort of discussions 
are carried out by men who are afraid to feel anything 
and deal with real emotions and rela issues.
[02:45] Yves (yves@199.84.216.49) left #apologetics.
[02:45] <NCCSA1862> Emotions are irrelevant in the quest 
for truth
[02:45] <NCCSA1862> Hello Mike!
[02:45] <RedTango> Jus, you didnt understand me, i am 
saying if you were in heaven and forgiven, and a sinner 
came up to you, you would love him, as he is forgiven 
too, no matter what the sin?
[02:46] <RedTango> NCCA, emotion is where you will find 
the truth.
[02:46] <RedTango> Yes i am amrried
[02:46] <Jus1drful> Absolutely.
[02:46] GREG (strandbg@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[02:46] <NCCSA1862> RT: Offer an explanation as to why.
[02:47] <RedTango> Jus, so what if the sin of this guy 
was that he raped your wife, cut her up and presented 
her in a box at your doorstep...you would love him 
just the same?
[02:47] <GREG> hello all
[02:47] <RedTango> NCCA, because religion is the result 
of fear and guilt.
[02:47] <Jus1drful> Absolutely.
[02:47] Locum (Schildt@slip56.vianet.net.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:47] <GREG> hello mike_baun and Redtango
[02:47] <RedTango> Jus, what of your wife?
[02:48] <Mike_Baun> Hi Greg
[02:48] <NCCSA1862> Red herring. What does that have 
to do with it? By your own criteria, therefore, religion 
is true because it's based on emotion
[02:48] <RedTango> No, i didnt say it is true, i said 
it was a result.
[02:48] <GREG> so what is this chanel supose to be about
[02:48] <Jus1drful> RedTango, what if when you were dating 
your spouse and he (right?) put a gun to your head 
and said 'love me'.  Is that love?
[02:48] <NCCSA1862> Sure, Greg, don't say hello to everyone.
[02:48] <RedTango> Gee, no one wanted to stay in #bible 
with boring old Frank Bama?
[02:48] <Mike_Baun> Christinity is fundamentally historical 
based.
[02:48] <NCCSA1862> :)
[02:48] <Mike_Baun> The resurrection.
[02:48] <GREG> hey now red: be nice
[02:49] <Mike_Baun> The death of Christ.
[02:49] <RedTango> Jus, explain the connection between 
that and your wife being chopped up.
[02:49] <RedTango> Be nice? WHy, the guys a big bore.
[02:49] <NCCSA1862> Mike: What evidence would you offer 
to someone skeptical about the resurrection?
[02:49] <Mike_Baun> Pentecost
[02:49] <Jus1drful> God didn't create us as robots.  
True love requires will to love the other person in 
the relationship.
[02:49] <RedTango> Jus, and what of your wife?
[02:49] <Jus1drful> My wife will be in Heaven no matter 
how she dies.
[02:49] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: any thoughts on this yourself?
[02:50] <RedTango> So nothing really matters to you then.
[02:50] <NCCSA1862> Mike, I do have some thoughts, but 
wanted to hear yours first!
[02:50] <GREG> So redtango:  you jucked off without my 
knowing it and i was talkin to my self or was i
[02:50] <Jus1drful> 100% of us are going to die none 
of us escape that fact....what is important is where 
we go when we die.
[02:50] <RedTango> jucked off?
[02:50] <GREG> sorry 
[02:51] <GREG> took
[02:51] <Jus1drful> I love my wife and would dread that 
kind of death, but how she dies I cannot control.
[02:51] <RedTango> Jus, so if a person rapes and strangles 
100 women, they can go to heaven as long as they repent, 
but if an athesit spends a lifetime trying to heal 
women who have been raped, they go to Hell, correct?
[02:51] <NCCSA1862> Mike?
[02:51] <GREG> so what are you guys discusing sounded 
like some sort of killing or something
[02:51] <RedTango> Well, everyone wanted me to leave, 
what could i do.
[02:51] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: I'm here.
[02:51] <NCCSA1862> I asked a moment ago...
[02:52] <NCCSA1862> I want your thoughts first
[02:52] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: thinking :)
[02:52] <Jus1drful> RedTango, you are placing importance 
on what a person's merits are to get into heaven.  
God sees us all as sinners that cannot come into His 
presence.  Even the 'best' of us sin.
[02:53] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: I would take a historical 
approach together with fullfilled prophecy ... 
[02:53] <GREG> Redtango: question.  Do you not believe 
that there is a god?
[02:53] <RedTango> Jus, so the atheists who help rape 
victims go to Hell, and the repented rapist/murderer 
goes to Heaven, correct? Yes or no?
[02:53] <RedTango> Greg, i do NOT beleive in God, no.
[02:54] <NCCSA1862> Mike: keep going
[02:54] <GREG> redtango:  You don't believe in God in 
any way shape or form. am i correct in saing this?
[02:54] <Jus1drful> We stand on one side of a chasm and 
God is on the other....sin is the chasm.   If you try 
to build a bridge across it, you will only make it 
part of the way because you are not 100% perfect.  
Only Jesus lived the perfect life t

hat none of us could live and thus died as a perfect 
sacrifice on the cross for our sins.
[02:54] <NCCSA1862> RT: a decidedly illogical position, 
I might add...
[02:54] <RedTango> Jus, yes or no?
[02:54] <Jus1drful> His bridge goes 100 percent of the 
way across and spans the gap.
[02:54] <RedTango> yes or no?
[02:54] <Jus1drful> Yes.
[02:55] <Jus1drful> The atheist is unforgiven, the murderer 
is.
[02:55] <RedTango> And that is why i do not beleive in 
God.
[02:55] <RedTango> man, that is so sick, so twisted.
[02:55] <Jus1drful> But only because the murderer was 
forgiven by the shed blood of Jesus.
[02:55] <NCCSA1862> RT: Read Dante's inferno.
[02:55] <RedTango> And people say atheists are "immoral"
[02:55] <NCCSA1862> Mike: I still want an elaboration
[02:56] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: it would be very detailed
[02:56] <Jus1drful> RedTango, even now Jesus offers you 
eternal life and you are choosing not to receive it.
[02:56] <NCCSA1862> That's fine
[02:56] Locum (Schildt@slip56.vianet.net.au) left #apologetics.
[02:56] <NCCSA1862> I like detail
[02:56] <Mike_Baun> going over the recorded circumstances 
of the trial of Christ
[02:56] <GREG> redtango:  I like to kinda think about 
sin in this way. Its kinda like a compass that doesn't 
point true north.  what good is it.
[02:56] <Jus1drful> A gift is only a blessing if you 
let someone give it to you, RedTango.
[02:57] <GREG> that is unfortunately true:)
[02:57] <Jus1drful> Jesus' gift is free.  No tricks. 
 He offers you Life eternal if you admit you are not 
perfect and ask His forgiveness.
[02:57] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: the first thing I would 
extablish is why He was brought to pilate
[02:57] <RedTango> Jus, cant you see why this is so sick 
to me, at all? Certainly you can.
[02:57] <NCCSA1862> Very good. I'm listening
[02:58] <Jus1drful> I can see you're standpoint, RedTango. 
 It does seem unfair, but you aren't acknowledging 
that *all* people are sinful no matter how 'nice' they 
are.
[02:58] <NCCSA1862> RT: But youre being so illogical 
about it? Why should god accept you, if you spend your 
whole life rejecting him?
[02:59] <Jus1drful> The entry requirement to Heaven isn't 
to do good things with your life.  It is that you must 
be *perfect* to be in the presence of a Holy God.
[02:59] <GREG> Redtango:  I think it is rather unfair 
of you to ask me or anyone else what Gods rightoues 
judgment will be, only a fool would try to answer that 
question with no qualifier
[02:59] <Jus1drful> This can only come through a *perfect* 
sacrifice to remove your sins.
[02:59] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: I would establish that 
it was because they wanted him to decree the death 
penalty.
[03:00] <Mike_Baun> Versus take the matter before the 
Sanhedrin
[03:00] <Jus1drful> God doesn't hate people who go to 
hell.  He sent his beloved Son to die a tortured death 
because He loves them so much.
[03:00] <NCCSA1862> Well, gentlemen, I'm off to bed. 
Mass tomorrow, you know. Mike: EMail me. I'm interested 
in what you have to say. NCCSA186@ix.netcom.com
[03:00] <NCCSA1862> Goodnight
[03:00] <GREG> see ya
[03:00] <Mike_Baun> NCCSA1862: I recommend a book
[03:00] <Mike_Baun> Who moved the Stone
[03:00] <NCCSA1862> Go ahead
[03:01] <Jus1drful> What do you think about what I said 
there, RT?
[03:01] <NCCSA1862> Fine, but I'd like best to hear it 
from you...
[03:01] NCCSA1862 (NCCSA186@hou-tx8-18.ix.netcom.com) 
left irc: Leaving
[03:01] <RedTango> Jus, sorry, i was reading my e-mail
[03:01] <Jus1drful> That's o.k.
[03:01] <RedTango> Jus, i read it and it means nothing 
to me, i have had enough nonsense for one evening.
[03:02] <RedTango> You have shown yourslef to be pretty 
twisted
[03:02] <RedTango> see ya
[03:02] <Jus1drful> What did I say that is twisted?
[03:02] RedTango (silver@ip179.lax.primenet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[03:02] <Mike_Baun> typical bash
[03:02] <Jus1drful> You can break down walls, but they 
run behind others because they are running from God.
=================================================================
[17:29] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[17:30] <newsong> hello David
[17:30] <David7> Hello!
[17:30] <newsong> hello David...glad to meet you again
[17:31] <newsong> you have some statements you wish to 
make?
[17:31] <David7> Well, where is the evidence for god's 
existance?
[17:31] <newsong> I think I shared some over on Bible....what 
is your evidence He does not exist?
[17:32] <newsong> I will listen to your case about the 
non-existance of God...David
[17:33] <David7> New - Well, since I do not know much 
about the topic, I was hoping someone here could enlighten 
me.
[17:33] <newsong> David!!!!....you don't know much.?????....interesting.....
[17:33] <newsong> Without being too personal...if I may 
ask....
[17:34] <newsong> Have you attended a christian church
[17:34] <David7> I have been to more churches than most 
people.
[17:34] <newsong> ok....christian?....can you share denomination?
[17:35] <David7> All I am asking for is some evidence 
that god exists.
[17:35] <newsong> I understand....just wondering what 
your point of reference is....that's all...
[17:36] <newsong> here are a few places to start...wait 
1 one....
[17:36] <David7> Waiting....
[17:36] <newsong> !niv Rom 1 19
[17:36] <newsong> hmmm...wonder if bot is working....
[17:37] <David7> Tell me in your own words, then.
[17:37] Percy (goober.pea@xyp103p18.ltec.net) got netsplit.
[17:37] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
got netsplit.
[17:37] David7 (davidl@p17.t0.rio.com) got netsplit.
[17:38] David7 (davidl@p17.t0.rio.com) returned to 
#Apologetics.
[17:39] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
returned to #Apologetics.
[17:39] Percy (goober.pea@xyp103p18.ltec.net) returned 
to #Apologetics.
[17:40] <newsong> the creator God?....reject the God 
who created you?
[17:40] <Percy> I'm a believer...but this isn't evidence 
is it?
[17:40] <David7> New - Yes, what happens if one rejects 
him?
[17:41] <newsong> of course....that would...first and 
foremost...be that persons choice...correct?
[17:41] <David7> New - Yes, a personal choice.
[17:41] <David7> So, what happens to such a person?
[17:42] Percy (goober.pea@xyp103p18.ltec.net) left 
#apologetics.
[17:42] <newsong> The question is not what happens to 
such a person.....the question is: how do you believe 
about God...who was revealed in the flesh through his 
son Jesus Christ?
[17:43] <David7> New - but I am asking you: what happens 
to someone who rejects your god?
[17:43] <newsong> what happens if you reject Jesus Christ...who 
was made to be your atonement for your sin?
[17:44] <David7> New - I am asking you that very same 
question.
[17:44] <newsong> The rejection of redemption that was 
provided for your sin...would mean that the consequences 
of sin...is death
[17:45] <newsong> and what is death....but separation 
from the presence of God
[17:45] <David7> New - What does: "consequences is death" 
mean?
[17:45] <newsong> consequences of sin....don't misquote...
[17:46] <David7> Well, what does that mean?
[17:46] <newsong> because man is born of sin....
[17:46] <newsong> there must be a atonement made for 
that sin....
[17:46] <David7> How is it that man is born of sin?
[17:47] <David7> Where did sin originate?
[17:47] <newsong> because of Adam's sin.....
[17:47] <newsong> sin originated with Lucifer.......
[17:47] <David7> So, the sin of Adam is within each of 
us?
[17:48] <newsong> but Adam/Eve choose to disboey......and 
sin came onto the earth
[17:48] <newsong> you take issue with that....David
[17:48] <David7> New - Ok, I got that so far, no problem. 
 So, what you are saying is that the sin of Adam was 
passed onto us?
[17:49] B_ (bc13@pool014.Max26.Los-Angeles.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
joined #Apologetics.
[17:49] <newsong> yes....is that a issue with you?
[17:49] <B_> Hello?
[17:49] <David7> New - So far I understand.  So, the 
way it works is that my parents passed that "sin" onto 
me?
[17:50] <newsong> hello B
[17:50] <David7> Hey B
[17:50] <B_> I have a really dumb question.
[17:50] <newsong> yes...
[17:50] <newsong> and that is why Jesus was sent....
[17:50] <B_> I noticed your topic...  How can theism 
be rational?
[17:50] <David7> Newsong - What was your answer?
[17:51] <David7> New - So, my parents passed that "sin" 
onto me, right?
[17:51] <newsong> as did mine...DAvid....I am not justified 
thru my parents....
[17:52] <David7> New - How did my parents pass it onto 
me?
[17:52] <newsong> my parents cannot atone for me...only 
the blood of Jesus
[17:52] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[17:52] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) 
left #apologetics.
[17:52] <newsong> in Adam all die.....so in Christ all 
will be made alive
[17:53] <David7> New - How did my parents pass this "sin" 
onto me?
[17:53] <newsong> Death came into the world as a result 
of Adam and Eve's sin....
[17:53] <newsong> however...while we were yet sinners...Romans 
said...Christ bore our sins...
[17:54] <newsong> you still have stated what your opposition 
to God is...David...
[17:54] <David7> New - How -exactly- did my parents pass 
this "sin" onto me?
[17:55] <newsong> because it passed through Adam.....the 
same way sin was passed to me via my parents....
[17:55] <B_> Later, maybe.
[17:55] B_ (bc13@pool014.Max26.Los-Angeles.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
left #Apologetics.
[17:55] <newsong> you take issue what such a statement?
[17:55] <newsong> We were all born into Adam;s physical 
family
[17:56] <newsong> All of us have reaped the results of 
Adam;s sin...
[17:56] <newsong> We have inherited his guilt, a sinful 
nature...
[17:56] <David7> New - wait a second here.  I am asking 
you how "specifically" my parents passed this "sin" onto 
me.  Explain this.
[17:56] <newsong> what is your point?
[17:57] <David7> New - this has to do with my views of 
your god.  I would like you to answer that question. 
 And please be specific.
[17:59] <newsong> perhaps I am not as learned as you 
David...I have attempted to state biblical truth...so 
then come forth with your view of my God....
[18:00] <David7> New - can you, or can't you, tell me 
specifically how my parents passed on this "sin" to me?
[18:00] <newsong> I have stated as clearly what the Bible 
says.....I apologize is that is not plain enough for 
you....
[18:00] <newsong> is=if
[18:01] <David7> Ok, my parents gave me genetic material, 
and nothing else (when I was in the womb, that is). 
 So, this may give us a hint.  Is "sin" physical?
[18:02] <newsong> is death physicial?.....or will death 
be both spiritually and physically?
[18:02] <David7> New - what is the nature of sin?  What 
"is" sin?
[18:03] <newsong> simply stated....unbelief
[18:03] <newsong> disobedience
[18:03] <David7> So, the "sin" that adam passed onto the 
rest of humanity is "unbelief"?  Is this correct?
[18:04] <newsong> rebellion
[18:04] <newsong> are we born into a knowledge of God?.....
[18:04] <David7> Answer my question.
[18:04] <newsong> you have stated your answer...there 
is no God....
[18:05] <David7> No, I said I have not seen "evidence" 
of your god.  That does not at all mean that god does 
not exist.  Now, answer my question.
[18:05] <David7> Is "sin" unbelief?
[18:05] <newsong> very interesting answer....DAvid.......so 
evidence and existing is different?
[18:06] <David7> Is "sin" unbelief?
[18:07] <David7> Is "sin" unbelief?
[18:07] <newsong> sin will be demonstrated by many different 
behaviors.....however, the core is.....choice....believe 
or not believe
[18:07] <newsong> so you do understand a Creator God 
that exists?
[18:08] <David7> So, sin is a choice?  In other words, 
when one is shown the evidence that your god exists, 
and that person rejects god anyway, then that person 
"does not believe"?  Is this right?
[18:08] <newsong> sin is not the choice....belief is 
the choice
[18:09] <newsong> what is your purpose on coming onto 
Christian channels...especially when the Bible is not 
the basis of your paradigm?
[18:09] <David7> Ok, so when one is shown the evidence 
and that person chooses not to believe, then that person 
living in sin?
[18:10] <newsong> what would qualify as evidence in your 
estimation?
[18:10] <David7> Are we born into a knowledge of god?
[18:10] <newsong> are we?...how do you say?
[18:10] <David7> Answer my question.
[18:11] <newsong> I think it's time you reveal who you 
are.....
[18:11] <David7> I am that which I am.  Now, answer my 
question.
[18:11] <newsong> hehehehehe....
[18:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[18:12] <David7> New - How is sin passed on from parent 
to child?
[18:12] <newsong> why do you not state your paradigm?
[18:12] <David7> New - How is sin passed on from parent 
to child?
[18:12] <David7> New - How is sin passed on from parent 
to child?
[18:13] <newsong> I have stated biblical truth as best 
as I can....what is your paradigm?
[18:13] <David7> Can you explain that again?
[18:13] <newsong> no....state your beliefs....
[18:14] <David7> All I am interested in is the nature 
of sin.
[18:14] <newsong> if you are interested in this issue....how 
have you defined?
[18:15] <David7> Adam and Eve got the knowledge of good 
and evil after they ate of the fruit, right?
[18:15] <newsong> go on....
[18:15] <David7> Right...?
[18:15] <newsong> go on
[18:15] <newsong> state your belief
[18:16] <David7> Did they have knowledge of good and 
evil BEFORE they ate of the fruit?
[18:17] <newsong> what's your point?
[18:17] <David7> Just answer my question, please.
[18:17] <newsong> don't be so veiled...state where your 
argument is going...
[18:17] <David7> Look, they did not know what good and 
evil was WHEN they ate of the fruit, so why did god 
punish them?
[18:18] <David7> Hello?
[18:19] <newsong> yes.....
[18:19] <David7> Well, why did god punish them if they 
did not know any better?
[18:19] <newsong> because they were disobedient
[18:19] <David7> But they did not know any better!
[18:19] <newsong> the issue is not the tree.....that 
they ate of....the issue was the disobeying of the 
signal command God gave
[18:20] <David7> Sure, but they had no concept of disobeying. 
 Remember that they did not know about good and evil!
[18:21] <David7> Is that fair?
[18:22] <newsong> When the woman saw that the fruit of 
the tree was good for good and pleasing to the eye....
[18:22] <newsong> and also desirable for gaining wisdom...she 
took some and ate it...
[18:22] <newsong> She also gave some to her husband, 
who was with her...and he ate it...
[18:22] <newsong> Then the eyes of both of them were 
opened, and they realized they were naked
[18:22] <newsong> so they sewed vig leaves together and 
made coverings for themselves...
[18:22] <David7> Sure...
[18:23] <newsong> Adam and Eve got what they wanted: 
an intimate knowledge of both good and evil....
[18:23] <newsong> But they got it by doing evil....
[18:23] <newsong> and the results were disastrous...so 
say the least....!!!!!
[18:24] <David7> Look, is it fair for a parent to punish 
a child for doing something that the child did not 
know was wrong?
[18:25] <David7> Hello???
[18:27] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
got netsplit.
[18:27] David7 (davidl@p17.t0.rio.com) got netsplit.
[18:28] David7 (davidl@p17.t0.rio.com) returned to 
#Apologetics.
[18:28] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
returned to #Apologetics.
[18:29] <David7> Still alive?
[18:29] <newsong> sorry...i'm back
[18:29] KYLE99 (SUM1@cs4-04.mil.ptd.net) joined #Apologetics.
[18:29] KYLE99 (SUM1@cs4-04.mil.ptd.net) left #Apologetics.
[18:30] <newsong> so what is your point David?
[18:30] <David7> My point is that your god was not being 
a fair parent when he put that sin onto humanity.
[18:30] <newsong> of course....God is God...He is not 
our parent...
[18:30] <newsong> then take your point up with God....
[18:30] <David7> Oh, then god did not make us?
[18:30] <newsong> to worship Him....that he would have 
a relationship with man...
[18:30] <newsong> and that relationship would be freely 
given from man to God...
[18:30] <newsong> net spit....
[18:30] <newsong> hello
[18:30] <David7> New - Your god was not fair to humanity.
[18:31] <newsong> i see.....that is your position...
[18:31] <David7> Yep.
[18:31] <David7> And he killed and destroyed millions 
of people.
[18:31] <newsong> of course....personally....it is not 
my position to convince you...only to speak biblical 
truth...
[18:31] <David7> So, I do not follow him.
[18:31] <newsong> and your god....?
[18:32] <David7> I have no god.
[18:32] <newsong> and then my God....does exist...you 
have just rejected Him for yourself...
[18:32] <newsong> David7...is your god?
[18:32] <David7> What is your point?
[18:33] <newsong> what is the power of your diety?
[18:33] <newsong> are you sinless?
[18:33] <newsong> what is the atonment for you sin?
[18:34] <newsong> in what ways do you worship yourself?
[18:34] <David7> I have no diety, I have no sin.  I have 
no need for atonement.
[18:34] <newsong> you are sinless?
[18:34] <David7> I worship nothing.
[18:34] <newsong> what is your purpose of being?
[18:34] <newsong> ahhhhhhhhhhh....my friend you are even 
more deceived than those who openly worship Lucifer
[18:35] <David7> Why does there have to be a purpose?
[18:35] <newsong> because it is Lucifer's goal...not 
so much to have people worship him...(although he loves 
adoration)...but his goal of deception is to have David7 
worship David7
[18:36] <David7> Did I say I worship david7?
[18:37] <newsong> because you had declared David7 as 
sinless....
[18:37] <David7> So?  Explain how that means that I worship 
david7?
[18:37] Mike_Baun (baun@fat-14.cybergate.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[18:37] <newsong> You are on the 'throne' of your life....You 
are in control of your life....You look only to yourself
[18:38] <David7> Did I say all that?  I never said those 
things.
[18:38] <Mike_Baun> Hello David
[18:38] <newsong> how many others do you deceive?
[18:38] <newsong> why do you come on Christian channels?
[18:39] <David7> Answer my question.  Did I say that 
I worship myself?
[18:39] <newsong> do you hunt for prey of your religion....
[18:40] <David7> Look, answer my question.  YES or NO
[18:40] <newsong> I am curious what is the different 
between "evidence" and "existance" to you?
[18:40] <newsong> hello Mike
[18:41] <Mike_Baun> Hi Newsong
[18:41] <David7> Answer my question.  YES or NO
[18:41] <newsong> no...it is not incombent upon me to 
answer your demands....
[18:41] <David7> Did I say that I worship myself?
[18:41] <newsong> as you say
[18:42] <newsong> the words we speak are eternal.....
[18:42] <newsong> (hello Mike)
[18:42] <newsong> on the day of judgement..we will be 
justified by our words or condemned by our words...remember 
this...
[18:42] <David7> New - Did I say that I look only to 
myself?  Yes or No
[18:42] <Mike_Baun> David7: All you need do is make the 
statement "I do not worship myself".  I'm often stuck 
with having to make assertions about my position here 
after some statement I make. 
[18:43] <newsong> you state what your intention is....
[18:43] <newsong> You did state that you are sinless.....David
[18:43] <David7> New - I do not worship myself, I look 
towards others for help.
[18:44] <newsong> others...why...you said you are sinless?
[18:44] <Mike_Baun> David7: Do you believe there is such 
a thing as "sin"?
[18:45] <David7> Mike - define "sin"?
[18:45] <newsong> exact quote: I have no diety...I have 
no sin..I have no need for atonement
[18:45] <newsong> David7 exact quote....above
[18:45] <David7> New - So???????  What is your point?
[18:46] <Mike_Baun> David7:mamartia - missing the mark
[18:46] <Mike_Baun> hamartia - missing the mark
[18:46] <David7> Mike - Huh?
[18:47] <Mike_Baun> David7: that is the greek for sin 
in the new testament - hamartia - which means missing 
the mark.
[18:47] llorelei (on@fox-sl0.easyway.net) joined #Apologetics.
[18:47] Action: newsong cuts a piece of peach pie for 
the group....and pours the coffee
[18:47] <llorelei> good, I got here for the food :)
[18:48] <newsong> hehehehe...LL
[18:48] <David7> Mike - what does "missing the mark" mean?
[18:48] <Mike_Baun> litterally "a missing of the mark"
[18:48] <David7> New - What was the point of quoting 
me?
[18:48] <Mike_Baun> David7: first we must establish what 
the mark is
[18:48] <llorelei> could someone explain to me the name 
of this group - Apologetics?
[18:49] <newsong> i'm sorry...did that offend you?
[18:49] <Mike_Baun> David7: without establishing that 
we don't know if we missed it or not
[18:49] <David7> New - Nope.  Just curious why you brought 
it up?
[18:49] Resheph (elarson@moose.uvm.edu) joined #apologetics.
[18:49] <newsong> you have made yourself god by your 
declaration...David7...
[18:49] <David7> New - How so?
[18:50] <newsong> you state you are sinless
[18:50] <newsong> only God can forgive sins
[18:50] <Mike_Baun> David7: and who sets the mark
[18:50] <David7> New - Did I say I can forgive sins?
[18:51] <newsong> you have forgiven your own sins
[18:51] <David7> New - Where does it say that only a 
god can be sinnless?
[18:51] <newsong> if you do not have sin...then you declare 
yourself a god
[18:51] <David7> New - How does not having sin make me 
a god?
[18:51] <Mike_Baun> David7: An inherant position of Christian 
theology is that God sets the standards for hitting 
the mark - anything less then this is missing the mark 
(i.e. sin)
[18:51] <newsong> Jehovah God is sinless...Jesus Christ 
is sinless...there was no sin in Him!!!
[18:52] <David7> New - show me how it is that one MUST 
be a god if they are without sin.
[18:52] <newsong> your statement puts David7 right up 
there with Jesus Christ....thereby you are declaring 
powers ascribed only for diety.....hence you worship 
yourself
[18:53] <David7>  New - show me how it is that one MUST 
be a god if they are without sin.
[18:53] <David7>  New - show me how it is that one MUST 
be a god if they are without sin.
[18:53] <David7>  New - show me how it is that one MUST 
be a god if they are without sin.
[18:53] <Mike_Baun> David7: One must not be god to be 
sithout sin - the angels that have not allen are without 
sin.
[18:53] llorelei (on@fox-sl0.easyway.net) left irc: 
Leaving
[18:53] <Mike_Baun> David7: according to classical Christian 
theology
[18:53] <newsong> brb
[18:54] Resheph (elarson@moose.uvm.edu) left #apologetics.
[18:55] <David7> Well, now what?
[18:56] <Mike_Baun> David7: So where are you from?
[18:56] <David7> Mike - My parents.
[18:57] <Mike_Baun> David7: heh heh --- no silly -- I 
mean Where is your home town?
[18:58] Madelaine (geta@fix5.fix.net) joined #Apologetics.
[18:58] <Madelaine> what is apologetics?
[18:58] <David7> It's when christains apologize for being 
wrong.
[18:58] <Mike_Baun> heh heh heh
[18:58] <Madelaine> oic
[18:59] <Mike_Baun> apologetics --- defense of the faith
[18:59] <Mike_Baun> from the greek work apologia
[19:00] <Madelaine> c'mon, really, what is it?
[19:00] <Madelaine> not nice to confuse philistines
[19:00] <Mike_Baun> In particular the Christian faith
[19:01] <Madelaine> hey now, there is no defense of faith
[19:01] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: Christianity is primarily 
a historical faith.
[19:02] <Mike_Baun> The resurrection of Jesus Christ 
is an event in history.
[19:02] <Madelaine> there's no such thing as rational 
theism
[19:02] <Madelaine> it's an event in a book 
[19:03] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: in history
[19:03] <Mike_Baun> recoreded in the Bible
[19:03] <Mike_Baun> Just as the birth of Jesus Christ 
is a historical event.
[19:04] <Madelaine> you have proof christ resurected???
[19:04] <David7> No one saw him come back to life.
[19:04] <Mike_Baun> David7: Eyewitnesses say him die.
[19:05] <Mike_Baun> It is recorded that a spear was stuck 
in his side.
[19:05] <Madelaine> eyewitnesses who are all dead now 
and whose only words are printed inone book, that's 
not proof
[19:05] <David7> Mike - Could have been made up to "keep 
the faith" going.
[19:05] <Madelaine> it is recorded, it is written, it 
is NOT prooven...do you know what rational means?
[19:06] <Madelaine> could you please define apologetics?
[19:06] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: lets apply your test to 
nonbiblical claims that are accepted by historians
[19:06] <Mike_Baun> and see if it is a reasonable test
[19:07] <David7> Mike - Is it possible that the resurection 
story was made up to conserve the faith?
[19:07] <Madelaine> mike, like what? the big bang THEORY!? 
it's a theory
[19:07] <Madelaine> duh
[19:07] <Mike_Baun> Madeline: Prove to be that the first 
president of the United States was George Washington.
[19:08] <Mike_Baun> Using your standards.
[19:08] <Madelaine> most historians have more than one 
book to proove if something happened or not
[19:08] <David7> Mike we can visit his grave, dig it 
up and there he is!
[19:08] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: at the time these writings 
were not all in one book
[19:08] <Mike_Baun> your position is moot on this issue
[19:08] <Mike_Baun> there were many sources
[19:09] <Mike_Baun> some are not included in what Christians 
call "the canon".
[19:09] <Madelaine> there's more than one record of proof 
that george was a president, besides, he didn't do 
anything inhumanly possible that i'm expected to believe 
just cuz it's written 
[19:09] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: tht is another issue
[19:09] Styx (styx@p38.t0.rio.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:09] <David7> Mike - could the resurection story have 
been made up?
[19:09] <Mike_Baun> Madeline: you yourself said all we 
have a somw written records -- what more do you have?
[19:10] <David7> All hail Styx!!!!!
[19:10] Action: Styx bows
[19:10] <David7> Mike - could the resurection story have 
been made up?
[19:10] Action: Styx is unipresent. He's always precisely 
where he is.
[19:10] <Madelaine> plenty if i really needed to proove 
it, but the point is, all you have is one book, and 
it's says some guy came back from the dead and you 
want me to believe it
[19:11] Eliasberg (estoeben@asm4-1.sl040.cns.vt.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[19:11] <Eliasberg> hi
[19:11] <David7> Mike there are descendents of George 
Washington.  Cannot say the same for jesus-chrusties.
[19:11] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: the point that I'm fundamentally 
making is that your test is not a fair one.
[19:11] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: Did aristotle exist?
[19:11] <Styx> Some say that the story of George Washington 
is an exaggeration, too.
[19:11] <David7> Mike - Why is it not fair?
[19:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[19:12] <Madelaine> i'm not asking you to believe george 
was president, i really don't care, it has no shaping 
on your philosophy whatsoever, but believing in the 
unreal, the irrational, the un prooven does...and i'm 
asking you again, what the hel

l is apologetics, is there even such a thing, are you 
afraid to define it cause you don't even know yourself?
[19:12] <David7> Mike - He may not have, actually.
[19:12] <Madelaine> i don't care if aristotle xisted, 
i'm not one of his follows or preachers am i?
[19:12] <David7> Madelaine - WAY TO GO!!!!!!
[19:12] <Mike_Baun> Madekaine: that is another issue 
- I was responding to your first assertion
[19:12] <Styx> Aristotle did not have to actually exist 
in order for the teachings of that character (whether 
fictional or factual) to be valid.
[19:13] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: the point is what standards 
do historians accept in determining the life of Aristotle
[19:13] <Madelaine> they are all the same issue, don't 
you see? are you blind? blind to the truth that there 
is no god an never will be???
[19:13] <David7> Mike - answer my question.  Could the 
resurection been made up?
[19:13] Hexanone (estoeben@asm4-1.sl040.cns.vt.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[19:13] <Mike_Baun> David7: Could the moon be made of 
green cheese?
[19:13] Action: Hexanone is now really here (Eliasberg)
[19:13] <Madelaine> the first question i asked was " what 
is apologetics?" if you don't remember, then it moved 
into christianity and rationalism
[19:14] <Madelaine> they all go together, can't you realise 
this? you have to define what you believe and what 
you don't 
[19:14] <David7> Mike - No.  We have physical proof that 
it is not.  Now, where is your physical proof that 
the story was not made up?
[19:14] <Styx> Mike: Many theologians would assert that 
"God could make it so"
[19:14] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: I also noticed that you 
said rational theism was .... what did you say ...?
[19:14] <Madelaine> mike, are there also aliens?
[19:14] <Madelaine> is elvis alive?
[19:15] <Eliasberg> uhh gw doesnt have any decendents
[19:15] <Mike_Baun> Madelaine: that is a whole nother 
subject!!! ;)
[19:15] <Madelaine> imposilbe, at least judging from 
my definitions of each of the words
[19:15] <Madelaine> it's an oxymoron
[19:15] <Eliasberg> brb-server switch
[19:15] Eliasberg (estoeben@asm4-1.sl040.cns.vt.edu) 
left irc: Leaving
[19:15] <David7> It is illrational to believe in an event 
for which there is no evidence.
[19:16] <Madelaine> very good david, you get a gold star
[19:16] <Styx> David7: (irrational)
[19:16] Nick change: Hexanone -> Eliasberg
[19:16] <Mike_Baun> david7: you said "no evidence" yet 
someone here said that a book recorded these events
[19:16] <David7> Styx - Pyrex!
[19:17] <Eliasberg> whats the topic right now?
[19:17] <Mike_Baun> david7: How about dealing with the 
claims of the historical record
[19:17] <David7> Mike - It recorded events.  But those 
events are not believable.
[19:17] <Styx> Mike: Do you believe that your god is 
omnipresent?
[19:17] <Madelaine> elias: apologetics, what is it really?
[19:17] <Mike_Baun> david7: for insance the historical 
record of the trial of Jesus Christ?
[19:18] <Mike_Baun> david7: Why was Jesus not tried by 
the sanhedrin?
[19:19] <Styx> Mike: His name was not Jesus Christ.  
That much is part of the historical record.  Much in 
the same manner that history has changed Cristobol 
Colon's name to "Christopher Columbus".
[19:19] <Mike_Baun> Any one here familiar with the historical 
account of the trial of Jesus Christ?
[19:19] <David7> Mike - Look, ya don't see people coming 
back to life all over the place do ya.  His "so-called" 
resurection is a myth.  Learn to live with it.
[19:20] <David7> Mike - why cares?
[19:20] <Styx> Mike: Do you believe that Yasheweh ben 
Josef is God?
[19:20] <Mike_Baun> David7: No - that is why it is considered 
to be a miracle - if it happened everyday it wouldn't 
be a miracle
[19:20] <Madelaine> y=o?
[19:20] <David7> Mike - Did jesus die for our sins?
[19:21] <Mike_Baun> David7: You don't want to discuss 
the trail of Jesus?
[19:21] <Madelaine> mike, check out a movie called Jesus 
of Montreal and I'll check you later...bye
[19:21] Madelaine (geta@fix5.fix.net) left #Apologetics.
[19:21] <Styx> Mike: Where can I hike this "Trail of Jesus"? 
 Is it in the holy land?
[19:21] Action: Styx ponders why Mike fails to answer 
questions posed of him.
[19:21] <Mike_Baun> Trial
[19:21] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:22] <Mike_Baun> Styx: one subject at a time
[19:22] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:22] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:22] <Styx> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:22] <Mike_Baun> david7: one subject at a time
[19:22] <Styx> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:23] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:23] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:23] <Styx> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:23] <Mike_Baun> Styx - David7: You are already familiar 
with this claim?
[19:23] <David7> Mike - did jesus die for our sins?
[19:24] <Mike_Baun> David7: Do you have a Bible --- look 
up John 3:16
[19:24] <Mike_Baun> You can probably quote it to me.
[19:24] <Mike_Baun> David7: Can you quote Jogn 3:16 to 
me?
[19:25] <David7> Mike - The topic is now: "Did jesus die 
for our sins?"
[19:25] <Mike_Baun> John 3:16 ---- anyone
[19:25] <Styx> If he did, then what good became of it? 
 Sin still exists, and people claim that Jesus is not 
dead.  What's wrong with this picture?
[19:25] <Mike_Baun> David7: I choose the trail of Jesus
[19:25] <David7> Mike  - just tell us.
[19:25] <Mike_Baun> Since it is relevant to that issue
[19:25] <Eliasberg> its the "for god so loved the world 
 blahblahblah verse"
[19:25] <Mike_Baun> Eliasberg: you do know the verse 
:)
[19:25] <David7> Mike - who cares?
[19:26] <Mike_Baun> david7: A seeker of the truth would 
care.
[19:26] <Eliasberg> yeah mike-do you believe in biblical 
inerrancy?
[19:26] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:26] <Mike_Baun> Another issue yet :)
[19:27] <David7> Mike - there is no John 3:16!!!
[19:27] <Mike_Baun> heh heh heh
[19:27] <David7> Mike - does god know everything?
[19:28] <Mike_Baun> david7: study the trail of Jesus 
.... it may surprise you.
[19:28] <Mike_Baun> david7: perhaps you can tear apart 
the historical record of the trail
[19:28] <Mike_Baun> give it a shot --- a few attorneys 
have
[19:28] <David7> Mike - does god know everything?
[19:29] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
left #apologetics.
[19:29] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:29] <Eliasberg> mike -biblical innerancy? yes or 
no?
[19:29] <Mike_Baun> david7: I'm sticking to the record 
of the trail of Jesus Christ - that's it :)
[19:29] <Eliasberg> so mike, what were jesus's last words?
[19:29] <Styx> You can't say that here.  ;-D
[19:29] <David7> Mike - are you going to answer our questions, 
or just continue to spew out side-steps to avoid flaws 
in the bible?
[19:30] Action: Styx suspects the latter.
[19:30] <Mike_Baun> david7: examing the trail of Jesus 
is not an attempt to sidestep the issue
[19:30] <Mike_Baun> it is a direct on appraoch you don't 
seem top be interested in
[19:30] <Styx> I thought that this was "apologetics"; yet 
I see no apologies for errant scriptures.
[19:31] <Mike_Baun> I still wonder - why not discuss 
the trail of Jesus
[19:31] <David7> Mike - do you think that the bible is 
without error?
[19:31] <Mike_Baun> perhaps you could find some flaw 
there
[19:31] <David7> Mike - do you think that the bible is 
without error?
[19:31] <Eliasberg> so mike, what were jesus's last words?
[19:31] <David7> Mike - we are not interested in the 
trial.
[19:31] <David7> Mike - do you think that the bible is 
without error?
[19:32] <Mike_Baun> david7: that much is obvious - but 
I can't see why not - it addresses all the issues you 
have been bringing up
[19:32] <Styx> David7: I strongly suspect that Mike has 
not read much of his bible.
[19:32] <David7> Mike - you are losing our confidence 
in you because you refuse to answer our questions.
[19:33] <Eliasberg> mike-lets see- you have for contradictory 
accounts of jesuss's life, plus a few extrabiblical 
sources which dont portray jesus as anything more than 
a human
[19:33] <Eliasberg> for=4
[19:34] <David7> Styx - I agree.  Mike has not read the 
bible.
[19:34] <Mike_Baun> I still wonder - why you have to 
make general comments - when I have offered to examine 
a specific one
[19:34] <David7> EVERYONE - Mike is a fake!
[19:34] KaraStude (kstudent@max3-147.HiWAAY.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[19:34] <Mike_Baun> perhaps you are afraid of what you 
may find
[19:34] <KaraStude> Hello everyone
[19:34] <Styx> David7: If Mike had bothered to read the 
first two chapters of Genesis, he would see a blatant 
contradiction regarding which came first (Adam or animals). 
 It depends upon which chapter you read.
[19:34] <David7> Hey Kara!
[19:34] <Eliasberg> heya kara
[19:34] <KaraStude> Hi David and Elias
[19:34] <Styx> Hi ho, Kara.
[19:34] <Mike_Baun> Styx: No one cares to debate 20 issues 
at once.
[19:34] <Mike_Baun> Styx: that would be silly
[19:35] <Eliasberg> so mike-what were jesus's last words?
[19:35] <KaraStude> Hi Styx
[19:35] <David7> Mike - Here is a specific comment/question 
- Did jesus die for our sins?  Yes or No?
[19:35] <Styx> No, Mike.  We're not afraid, because we 
read it and analyze it.  You simply quote the parts 
that suit your interpretation of it.
[19:35] _Wildcat (phillipd@ppp20.apex.net) joined #Apologetics.
[19:35] <Eliasberg> heya cat
[19:35] <_Wildcat> hey
[19:35] Action: KaraStude says last words were Eli, 
Eli, lama sabachthani
[19:35] <_Wildcat> huh
[19:36] _Wildcat (phillipd@ppp20.apex.net) left #Apologetics.
[19:36] <David7> EVERYONE - Lets talk about how it is 
that a god that knows all, had his son killed AND KNEW 
he would come back to life.  What sort of sacrifice 
is that?????
[19:36] <Styx> Mike: That excuse is not viable, as you 
have failed to answer any questions posed to you.
[19:36] <Eliasberg> uhh rad john and luke kara
[19:36] <KaraStude> Hello wildcat
[19:36] <Mike_Baun> Styx: to examine the trail of Jesus 
would require looking at a lot of the New Testament 
documents --- plus a lot of stuff outside the Bible
[19:36] <Eliasberg> rad=read
[19:36] <Styx> Mike: Are you speaking of a trail, or 
a trial?
[19:37] <Mike_Baun> trial
[19:37] <Mike_Baun> typos
[19:37] <David7> Mike - We are talking about this sacrifice 
of jesus.
[19:37] Action: Styx applauds: That is the only question 
that Mike has answered of mine.
[19:37] Nick change: David7 -> david_666
[19:37] <Eliasberg> ok mike-simple question-name what 
you think are the best books for and against xianity
[19:37] <Mike_Baun> hmmmmm
[19:37] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:38] <Mike_Baun> No interest in the trail of Jesus?
[19:38] <Eliasberg> where's the trial in the roman records?
[19:38] <Mike_Baun> :)
[19:38] <Mike_Baun> ahhhh
[19:38] <Eliasberg> that youve read mike
[19:38] <david_666> Mike - where is the record of the 
trial in the hebrew records?
[19:38] <Mike_Baun> david_666: another good question
[19:38] <david_666> Mike - where's the trial in the roman 
records?
[19:39] <david_666> Mike - where is the record of the 
trial in the hebrew records?
[19:39] <david_666> Mike - where's the trial in the roman 
records?
[19:39] Nick change: Eliasberg -> EliaLurk
[19:39] Nick change: EliaLurk -> EliasLurk
[19:39] <Mike_Baun> :)
[19:39] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:40] <Mike_Baun> Time for you seekers of struth to 
do some homework.
[19:40] <Styx> Mike: That shouldn't take too much thought.
[19:40] <david_666> Mike - The record of the trial was 
written by those who believe in jesus.  Therefore, 
biased!
[19:40] <david_666> Mike - time for you to get a reality 
check!
[19:40] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:40] <Mike_Baun> david_666: perhaps - but in what 
way?
[19:41] <Mike_Baun> david_666: usually someone can show 
bias
[19:41] <Mike_Baun> the record of the trail doesn't have 
any in it
[19:42] <david_666> Mike - Open your eyes!
[19:42] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?  That shouldn't take 
you too long to answer.  Yes, or no?  Show some faith, 
and answer the question.
[19:42] <Mike_Baun> all these nonsense reasons
[19:42] <Mike_Baun> no specifics
[19:42] <Mike_Baun> just general condemnations
[19:42] <Mike_Baun> that doesn't take any thought at 
all
[19:42] <Mike_Baun> Why not look at the facts?
[19:43] <EliasLurk> what record of the trial?  it seems 
to go against roman law
[19:43] <david_666> Mike - what was the main point of 
the trial????
[19:43] KaraStude (kstudent@max3-147.HiWAAY.net) left 
#Apologetics.
[19:43] <Mike_Baun> Good point
[19:43] <Styx> Comdemnations come from your god, Mike. 
 [ref: Hell]
[19:43] <EliasLurk> mike-why dont you
[19:43] <Mike_Baun> Why was Jesus brought before the 
Roman authorities?
[19:43] <Mike_Baun> Do you know that?
[19:43] <david_666> Mike - answer Styx's question.
[19:44] <Mike_Baun> Why not the Jewish authotities?
[19:44] <david_666> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you 
believe that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:44] <david_666> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you 
believe that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:44] <Styx> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you believe 
that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?  That shouldn't take 
you too long to answer.  Yes, or no?  Show some faith, 
and answer the question.
[19:44] <david_666> Mike: Simple Yes/No query:  Do you 
believe that Yasheweh ben Yosef is God?
[19:45] <Styx> David: Mike is afraid to answer.
[19:45] <Styx> David: His faith must be slipping.
[19:45] <Mike_Baun> Good bye all.
[19:46] <Styx> Chicken!
[19:46] <Mike_Baun> Have a pleasent afternoon.
[19:46] Mike_Baun (baun@fat-14.cybergate.com) left 
#apologetics.
[19:46] <david_666> Mike - Press "Y-E-S, RETURN" if you 
agree or "N-O, RETURN" if not.
[19:46] <david_666> Mike   -can you spell "Yes" or "No"?
[19:46] <EliasLurk> as mike realizes he has lost, he 
leaves
[19:46] <david_666> CHICKEN!!!
[19:46] <Styx> He wimped out as predicted.
[19:46] <EliasLurk> well, im hopping over to #bible
[19:46] EliasLurk (estoeben@asm4-1.sl040.cns.vt.edu) 
left #apologetics.
[19:46] <david_666> Styx - Another one down the toilet!
[19:47] <Styx> I guess.  What a boring dweeb.
[19:47] <Styx> Catchya on the 'smoke.
[19:47] Styx (styx@p38.t0.rio.com) left #apologetics.
[19:47] <david_666> Styx - Was that a slip of the "tounges"?
[19:48] <david_666> Same old same old....
[19:48] <david_666> Hey, he is over in #bible!!!!
[19:48] RedTango (silver@ip061.lax.primenet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:48] <RedTango> yo
[19:48] RedTango (silver@ip061.lax.primenet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[19:51] Nick change: david_666 -> david_6^3
[19:53] Nick change: david_6^3 -> david_999
[19:55] david_999 (davidl@p17.t0.rio.com) left #apologetics.
================================================================
[22:24] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:25] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[22:26] Petrus (ethorne@ix-dc14-27.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:26] <Acolyte> hola
[22:26] <Petrus> Wow!  there are peopple here!
[22:26] <Acolyte> yup
[22:26] <TheRaven> sometimes
[22:27] <TheRaven> Want to discuss anything
[22:27] <Acolyte> the raven sure
[22:27] <Petrus> okay you cant prove the prin of contra 
without using it, therefore it cannot be proven
[22:27] <Acolyte> petrus false
[22:27] <Petrus> none the less, the prin o f contra is 
fundamental to all other logica argument
[22:27] <Acolyte> petrus the impossibility of its denial 
is verification, we use it in mathmatics allthe time
[22:28] <Petrus> acolyte you use it, yes, but use does 
not equal proof
[22:28] <Acolyte> petrus sure it does
[22:28] David5 (TrudyMan@p17.t0.rio.com) left #apologetics.
[22:28] <Petrus> we hold it to be true, but it cannot 
be proven
[22:29] <Acolyte> petrus the impossibility of the opposite 
is verificaiton
[22:29] <Petrus> there are a few others like you cannot 
prove your own existence
[22:29] <Acolyte> petrus logic is not a predicate of 
truth, truth is not predicated to it, it is the subject, 
it IS truth
[22:29] <Petrus> acolyte but there are people who deny 
the prin of contr
[22:30] <Acolyte> petrus right, and they are irrational 
as well
[22:30] <Petrus> aco what do you mean?  login is not 
a pred of truth, it is the subject?
[22:30] <Acolyte> petrus think about 1st grade
[22:30] <Acolyte> subject  and predicate
[22:30] <Acolyte> right?
[22:31] <Petrus> acolyte learned those in 6th grade - 
you mustve gone to a fast school
[22:31] <Acolyte> ok think on this...
[22:31] Wade (Wade@www-45-115.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[22:31] <Acolyte> the property Of truth is not predicated 
TO logic, the subject, rather truth and logic are the 
same
[22:32] <Acolyte> hullo wade
[22:32] <Petrus> acolyte truth is not logic logic is 
a process, no?
[22:32] <Wade> hello 
[22:32] <Petrus> hello to wade
[22:32] <Acolyte> Petrus, logic is a subject as well
[22:32] <Acolyte> Petrus it is a thing
[22:32] <Acolyte> Petrus the Logic is God
[22:32] <Acolyte> en arche ho logos
[22:33] <Petrus> acolyte  the logic is god?
[22:33] <Acolyte> Originally was the logic
[22:33] <Acolyte> yes
[22:33] <Petrus> in principio erat verbum ..et verbum 
erat deum
[22:33] <Petrus> deus
[22:34] <Petrus> logic and logos are 2 different words
[22:34] <Acolyte> translationplease, my latin is not 
all that hot
[22:34] <Acolyte> petrus not in greek
[22:34] <Petrus> :-)
[22:34] <Acolyte> what is the logos in greek language?
[22:34] <Petrus> logos = word
[22:34] <Petrus> logos verbum word
[22:34] <Acolyte> the reason,t he wisdom, the logic of 
God
[22:34] <Acolyte> petrus fine, word, reason logic wisdom, 
all the sme thing
[22:35] <Acolyte> verbumn is LATIN, not GREEK
[22:35] <Petrus> the logos is the expression of god and 
refers to the 2nd person of the blessed trinity
[22:35] <Acolyte> I know that
[22:35] <Acolyte> that is why Logic=God
[22:35] <Petrus> logic = not god
[22:35] <Acolyte> the logos reveals the Father
[22:36] <Petrus> yes
[22:36] <Acolyte> how can you have truth without logic?
[22:36] <Acolyte> u can't
[22:36] <Acolyte> hence is truth is eternal,thn so is 
logic
[22:36] <Petrus> logic is th e process of learning the 
truth
[22:36] <Acolyte> petrus that is the predicationOF logic, 
but that is not logic itselt
[22:36] <Acolyte> petrusnow replace truth for logic in 
your last statement
[22:36] <Petrus> the fact of something having existed 
will last forever
[22:36] <Acolyte> logic=truth
[22:37] <Acolyte> petrus but truth is eternal
[22:37] <Acolyte> look
[22:37] <Petrus> no truth is a condition of the intellect
[22:37] <Acolyte> consider this
[22:37] afr (arogers@p26.pm3.theriver.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:37] <Petrus> hello to afr
[22:37] <Acolyte> 1. Turth exists, that proposition will 
always be true
[22:37] <afr> hi all
[22:37] <Acolyte> petrus truth is independant of the 
intelelct
[22:37] <Petrus> it does not exist in reality allthough 
the universal concept of truth does not exist
[22:37] <Acolyte> petrus truth is a property predicated 
to a term in a proposition or to a proposition on the 
whole
[22:38] <Acolyte> brb
[22:38] <Acolyte> call
[22:38] <Petrus> for me to have truth, my intellect must 
conform to what is
[22:38] <Petrus> brg
[22:38] <Petrus> brb
[22:38] afr (arogers@p26.pm3.theriver.com) left #apologetics.
[22:38] <Acolyte> Petrus truth is already in you, hence 
jn 1:9
[22:39] Wade (Wade@www-45-115.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[22:39] <Acolyte> petrus there was never a time when 
proposition 1. has been false
[22:39] <Petrus> well, we are using truth in different 
meanings
[22:39] <Acolyte> 1. Turth exists, that proposition will 
always be true
[22:39] <Acolyte> I you are talking about truth as a 
predicate, Iam talking about truth as a subject
[22:40] <Acolyte> scratch I
[22:40] <Petrus> yeah, but that is different meaning 
or sense to the word truth
[22:40] <Acolyte> I know
[22:40] <Acolyte> that is what IU am trying to get u 
to see
[22:40] <Petrus> in philosophy , truth is a condition 
of the intellect
[22:40] <Acolyte> hence truth is eternal
[22:40] <Acolyte> false
[22:40] <Acolyte> in SOME Philosophies
[22:40] <Acolyte> not all
[22:41] <Acolyte> secondly, it is a state of the intelelct 
in regards to some propositions that the intellect 
affirms, but that is not the thing itself, only the 
predication OF the thing, of Turth that is
[22:41] <Petrus> but for me to know any thing as true, 
say a fact, my intellect must conform itself to that 
fact - e g geo washington was a pres of th e us of 
a
[22:42] <Acolyte> petrus your mind will affirm it, but 
that the act of predicating truth as a property, NOT 
Truth in itself
[22:42] <Acolyte> petrus Iamtalking about th latter
[22:42] <Acolyte> hence god=Truth
[22:42] <Acolyte> and logic =Truth
[22:42] <Acolyte> Logic=God=Truth
[22:42] <Acolyte> nice Trinitarianism there eh?!
[22:42] <Acolyte> ;)
[22:42] <Petrus> acolyte  well, yes, god is truth [way 
truth and life]
[22:43] <Acolyte> petrus and he is logic
[22:43] <Acolyte> for Logic=Truth
[22:43] <Petrus> if our intellects conform to him then 
we have th etruth
[22:43] <Acolyte> if Logic does not = truth then everything 
is messed big time
[22:43] <Petrus> there is logic in god but i dont think 
that god is logic
[22:43] <Acolyte> petrus no, we become LIKE the truth
[22:44] <Petrus> logic is a process and implies change 
and god does not change
[22:44] <Acolyte> hence 'You are the light of the world"
[22:44] <Acolyte> Petrusbut that is logic as a predicate 
again, not as itself
[22:44] <Acolyte> petrus eternal ideas don't change
[22:44] <Acolyte> Truth never chanegs
[22:44] <Acolyte> neither does logic
[22:44] <Acolyte> because
[22:44] <Acolyte> Logic=Truth
[22:44] <Acolyte> and vice versa
[22:44] <Petrus> therefor e there can be no logic in 
god
[22:45] <Acolyte> petrus only if yousee logic as not 
equal to Truth, which is absurd
[22:45] <Acolyte> is logic= to truth in al lcases or 
no?
[22:45] <Petrus> i dont know enough philosophy to discuss 
this further, but i dont feel that i can agree with 
you
[22:45] <Acolyte> ok fine
[22:45] <Acolyte> but
[22:45] <Acolyte> think on it
[22:45] <Acolyte> anyhow u can find it in many of the 
early xians
[22:45] <Petrus> i m thinking!  i m thinking
[22:45] <Acolyte> and I think the NT as well
[22:46] <Petrus> early xtians?  like who?
[22:46] McMurphy (JGH95001@uconnvm.uconn.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:46] <Acolyte> petrus liek Justin MArtyr
[22:46] <Petrus> hello murf
[22:46] <Acolyte> hullo mIc
[22:46] <McMurphy> So, what's this place about?
[22:46] <Petrus> i didnt know protestants read just marty
[22:46] <Acolyte> Defnse of Christian Theism
[22:47] <Acolyte> Petrus I am not Prot ;)
[22:47] <McMurphy> You get that acolyte?
[22:47] <Petrus> that is right!  prots dont have acolytes
[22:48] <Petrus> L @@@ mt 16 18
[22:48] <Petrus> Ljn 6 53
[22:49] <McMurphy> Acolyte: This is your defence?
[22:49] <Acolyte> mcmurphy nope
[22:49] <Acolyte> just some verse back at u
[22:49] <Acolyte> ;)
[22:49] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Ah.  Obviously the one I 
sent for you had no effect.
[22:50] <McMurphy> Need to see it again?
[22:50] <Acolyte> mcmurphy no, I don't think you have 
the right to interpret the text in the first place
[22:50] <Acolyte> mcmurphy, after all, it is OUR Book
[22:50] <Petrus> ooohh!  that is hard!
[22:50] <McMurphy> The right?  
[22:50] <Acolyte> your voice means nothing outside the 
Church
[22:50] <McMurphy> Your book?
[22:50] <Petrus> aco now you sound like tertullian
[22:50] Mike_Baun (baun@fat-4.cybergate.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:50] <McMurphy> You don't even know who you are talking 
to.
[22:50] <Acolyte> McMurphy no verse u bring up wil have 
any sawy since you do not have the authority to interpret 
it at all
[22:50] <Petrus> hey mike!
[22:51] <Acolyte> mcmurphy do I need to?
[22:51] <Mike_Baun> Hello Petrus
[22:51] <Acolyte> mcmurphy r u a Theist?
[22:51] <Petrus> aco why do you say that mac has no auth 
to interp?
[22:51] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Holy shit you are arrogant!
[22:51] <Acolyte> Petrus Tertullian is cool to a point
[22:51] <Petrus> aco to a point indeed
[22:51] <Acolyte> mcmurphy the church and the CHURCH 
ALONE has the right of interpretation of the scriptures, 
NOT HEATHENS
[22:51] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Yeah, I think you should 
have some idea of whom you are talking to.
[22:51] <Mike_Baun> Anyone interested in going over the 
trial of Jesus Christ?
[22:52] <Acolyte> McMurphy r u a a theist? yrs or no?
[22:52] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Am I a theist?  A little 
late to ask that, isn't it?
[22:52] <Petrus> aco be nice to murph ....
[22:52] <Petrus> mike yeah, go ahead
[22:52] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Are you a catholic?
[22:52] David5 (TrudyMan@p17.t0.rio.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:52] <Acolyte> mcmurphy just looking for verifcation 
for who I think u are since u ar emaking a big deal 
about it
[22:52] <Acolyte> mcmruphy depends
[22:52] <Petrus> mike altho i dont have any hexapla here 
or anything like that
[22:52] David5 (TrudyMan@p17.t0.rio.com) left #apologetics.
[22:52] <Acolyte> mike what in particular>
[22:52] <Petrus> aco depends?  yes or no
[22:52] <Acolyte> mike what in particular?
[22:52] <McMurphy> The whole idea of the protestant movement 
was that people could have a relationship to god without 
the priesthood.
[22:52] <Acolyte> petrus yes it depends
[22:53] <Acolyte> Mcmruphy AHHAHAHHA wrong answer
[22:53] <Petrus> mcm that is inscriptural
[22:53] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: there are a lot of aspects 
to it ..... 
[22:53] <Acolyte> mcmurphy go read some Calvin
[22:53] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: as you know
[22:53] <Acolyte> mcmurphy I am Catholic but not ROMAN
[22:53] <McMurphy> Luther translated the bible into German 
so that the *people* could read it and make up their 
own minds about it.
[22:53] <Petrus> aco you are either a catholic or not 
a catholic - the prin of contra ..r emember?
[22:53] <Acolyte> mcMurphy SO? that was done BEFORE luther
[22:53] <Acolyte> Petrus I am Catholic just not ROMAN 
Catholic
[22:54] <Petrus> aco oh?  one of those?
[22:54] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: In German?
[22:54] <Acolyte> petrus there is more than one kind 
of it
[22:54] <Acolyte> Mike inthe east, read some history
[22:54] <Acolyte> mike sorry
[22:54] <Petrus> aco are you in union wiht rome or no?
[22:54] <Acolyte> petrus nope
[22:54] <Acolyte> petrus but neither are Greek ORthodox, 
still Catholic tho
[22:54] <Petrus> mcm luther was not the 1st to x-late 
the bible
[22:55] <McMurphy> Acolyte:Protestants don't need you 
or your priests telling us what to do.  We worship 
god in our way, not some pontiffs way.
[22:55] <Petrus> aco if yuou are not in union with rome 
, you are no t any kind of catholic
[22:55] <Acolyte> mcmurphy besideds the bible could be 
had by anyone at most times in Europena history, if 
they could afford it
[22:55] <Petrus> aco you must be a lefebrvrist or a feeneyite
[22:55] <Acolyte> Petrus are Russian Orthodox Catholic?
[22:55] <Acolyte> petrus WHAT?
[22:55] <McMurphy> Petrus: Who beat him to it?  Whoever 
it was, his work didn't have the impact of Luthers.
[22:55] <Petrus> aco you said you are not greek ortho 
-
[22:56] <McMurphy> Acolyte: And if they spoke latin, 
which almost no one outside of the church did.
[22:56] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: It was translated into German 
earlier? ( I know there were other translations into 
the common language - after all ther Greek was written 
in every day usage of the language rather then some 
sort of theological Greek)
[22:56] <Acolyte> mcMurphy u are an atheist, so what 
does it matter what U think?
[22:56] <Petrus> mcm  true on that, but there were x-lations 
of parts at least
[22:56] <Acolyte> mcmurphy some merchants did and all 
the aristocracy did
[22:56] <Acolyte> I mean mike
[22:56] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Don't presume to know my 
mind, you arrogant little boy.  You could use a few 
lessons in manners.  More than a few.
[22:57] <Petrus> aco are you russ ortho
[22:57] <Acolyte> Petrus I am Anglican Catholic. Catholicty 
does not =Roman Catholocism
[22:57] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Besides, the meaning of the 
passage I quoted is quite clear, and right now, it 
is you who are troubling his won house.
[22:57] <Acolyte> mcmurphy you are an atheist are you 
not?
[22:57] <McMurphy> Catholicty?  Is that a word.
[22:57] <Acolyte> mcmurphy oh really?
[22:57] <Petrus> aco since you are cut off from the vine 
, the branch is dead
[22:57] <Acolyte> mcmurphy is the bile true or false?
[22:57] <Acolyte> Bible even
[22:57] <Acolyte> mcmurphy yes, it is, look it up Catholicity
[22:57] <McMurphy> Acolyte: No, I am not.  Game, set, 
match, you lose.
[22:58] <Acolyte> petrus what?
[22:58] <Petrus> aco you could join ht e church and become 
a member of the anglican rite
[22:58] <Acolyte> Petrus why? the English church is OLDER 
than the Roman Church
[22:58] <Petrus> aco well that is hardly true
[22:58] <Acolyte> mcmurphy so the fool thinks to himself
[22:58] <Acolyte> petrus it is very true
[22:58] <McMurphy> Acolyte: There are many degrees of 
truth and falsehood.
[22:58] <Acolyte> mcmurphy you got all degress of the 
latter
[22:58] <Acolyte> brb
[22:59] <Petrus> aco the roman church was fouinded by 
peter and paul - the anglican church by augustine about 
600 years later
[22:59] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: I agree ... the accusation 
that the Roman church didn't want for the common people 
to read the Bible and that is was chained to the table, 
etc. is because the Bible was not within the means 
of most to own a copy.
[22:59] <Acolyte> Petrus false, the anglican church ssen 
bishops to the council of arels in 312 AD
[22:59] <McMurphy> Acolyte: So far, you have shown yourself 
to be quite the fool.        
[23:00] <McMurphy> You attack a foe you do not know when 
there is no need to do so.
[23:00] <Acolyte> Hey I got a call brb
[23:00] <Petrus> aco so, the roman church existed 250 
years before that - besides the british churhc of which 
you speak was wiped out in the invasions
[23:00] <McMurphy> That is foolishness.  Where you could 
have made a friend, you have made an enemy.
[23:00] <Acolyte> Petrus ever herar of King Carodock?
[23:00] <Petrus> aco go ahead
[23:00] <Mike_Baun> Acolyte: Don't have the value in 
adverage wages ... but it would take the average peasent 
many years to save up enough money to buy such a work.
[23:01] <Petrus> mike yes, books were valuable then and 
that is why they were chained up
[23:01] <McMurphy> Mike: It went way beyond that.  The 
Bible was in latin, which basically only priest could 
read.  And furthermore...
[23:02] <Acolyte> petrus he was the celtic king in about 
40 AD and taken to Rome as a prisoner war by the romans 
and he coverted and established in Rome a house called 
Britainia House, which is where the first Christian 
in Rome came from.
[23:02] <Petrus> aco and besides age alone is not a mark 
of apostolicity , unity with the vine is
[23:02] <McMurphy> Mike: The corruption of the Roman 
church in the middle ages is not disputed even by the 
present day church.
[23:02] <Petrus> aco where is that found?
[23:02] <Acolyte> Petrus number of works
[23:02] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Nice talking to you.  Ask 
yourself this: would you behave like you do if we werent 
separated by an electronic wall?
[23:02] <Petrus> mc m  agreed, but the church was not 
corrupt - it is the bride of xt
[23:02] Lovestory (LS@199.171.27.221) joined #apologetics.
[23:03] <Acolyte> Petrus, a few of the new xians at Britiania 
house are mentioned in the NT by St Paul
[23:03] <Petrus> aco name one
[23:03] <Acolyte> McMurphy yup
[23:03] <McMurphy> Petrus: Huh?
[23:03] <Lovestory> Hey, Petrus
[23:03] <Acolyte> Petrus St Bede, History of the English 
CHurch and People
[23:03] <Acolyte> Petrus 7th century work
[23:03] <Acolyte> Petrus Britania house still stands 
in Rome to this DAY
[23:04] <Acolyte> have a nice day I have to go
[23:04] <Petrus> hello love
[23:04] <Petrus> aco name them
[23:04] <Petrus> aco yes but all that is to the bad, 
because the british church was wiped out in the invasions
[23:04] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Then I bet you got beat up 
a lot in school.
[23:04] <Mike_Baun> McMurphy: I'm just trying to establish 
that they were valuable works .... that the modern 
mind can't conceive of how poorly educated the peasents 
actually were
[23:04] <Lovestory> may I ask what "Petrus" means?
[23:04] David5 (TrudyMan@p17.t0.rio.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:04] <Mike_Baun> McMurphy: the Roman Church even recented 
acknowledged doing things that were very antisemetic 
during World War II
[23:04] <David5> Mike - there you are!
[23:04] <McMurphy> Mike: I agree, but there was also 
the factor of a priestly class trying to maintain it's 
position.                               
[23:04] McMurphy!JGH95001@uconnvm.uconn.edu kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: be nice to ops
[23:04] <Petrus> never heard of it
[23:04] <Petrus> bye
[23:04] <David5> We want you to join us in HolySmoke.
[23:05] <Mike_Baun> Aco: Do you have to leave?
[23:05] <Petrus> live petrus is the latin form of the 
name of simon johnson, whose name jesus changed to 
rock or peter
[23:05] <Mike_Baun> Oh well ---- if you have to go - 
I understand.
[23:05] McMurphy (JGH95001@uconnvm.uconn.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:05] <Petrus> mike not true either
[23:05] <McMurphy> Acolyte: Haha!  I won!
[23:05] <Lovestory> thanks
[23:05] <Lovestory> Do you know me, Petrus?
[23:05] <David5> Mike - You there?
[23:05] <Petrus> hey  mcm
[23:06] <Petrus> love peter is the leader of the apostels 
and is the 1st pope
[23:06] David5 (TrudyMan@p17.t0.rio.com) left #apologetics.
[23:06] <McMurphy> Acolyte: If you act like this in rl, 
I bet you have few friends.  
[23:06] <Lovestory> I see
[23:06] <Petrus> love no, i dont think i know you ...i 
may have seen you here adn there on irc but i reallydont 
remember
[23:06] <Lovestory> there is another Petrus
[23:06] <Petrus> mc m aco is gone
[23:07] McMurphy!JGH95001@uconnvm.uconn.edu kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: be nice to ops
[23:07] <Petrus> love once in a whle i have to change 
petrus to something else because some one else is using 
it
[23:07] <Acolyte> later
[23:07] McMurphy (JGH95001@uconnvm.uconn.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:07] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left 
irc: Leaving
[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_5_5_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

