[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 [21:24] +

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

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 [21:24] Evangelon - what makes you think any sin is any more or less gross than another? [21:24] how true neuro [21:24] take it elsewhere [21:24] What is "gross sin"...I didn't know the Bible has classification of sins... [21:24] tough [21:24] Neuro yes it does, there is a sin that is not mortal, that does not lead to death [21:24] karen: scripture tells me that some sins are indeed worse than others. God regars homosexuality as an "abomination" for example [21:24] Paul said, "some mens sins go before them, others follow after" [21:24] is not all sin death ? [21:24] evangelon where are you? [21:25] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [21:25] Evangelon - along with several other sins I believe. [21:25] So is eating shrimp, Evangelon. So? [21:25] there is inquity, transgression and my sin nature. My sin nature, Christ has dealt with [21:25] Aco: Im in Little Rock, Arkansas [21:25] neuro, food laws were ot moral laws in the OT [21:25] Karen: yes [21:25] several others [21:25] evangelon ic [21:25] Action: Heiko notes that homosexuality is a construct unknown as such to the bible [21:25] evangelon well for being in LR, AK you are not doing bad [21:25] remember, Paul talks about sins of the flesh as being different than other sins. There are differences in sins [21:25] heiko yeah, that is why the jews killed ppl for it [21:26] Heiko - the practice was known. And forbidden. [21:26] asha (boadicea@anna.az.com) joined #apologetics. [21:26] Aco: heheh hows that? [21:26] Now, I would like to know how NT classifies sins. This OT stuff isn't that salient. [21:26] Aco: think about the word. [21:26] Heiko, is that why it is condemned in the talmud [21:26] oh, this IS the seat of Satan, you know :). [21:26] karen: you got it [21:26] Heiko I have, think about the history [21:26] Evanegelon, it is TBN land pratically [21:26] Greetings all [21:26] evangelon even more so than where I live [21:26] Aco: hahaha true, true [21:26] hullo asha [21:26] Aco: I am [21:26] Baptist Heaven, also, Aco [21:27] hihihihih [21:27] heiko if the Jews did not have the concept then why did the PRE-christian jews execute homosexuals? [21:27] Baptists come here in the summer to do time in hell :) [21:27] brb [21:27] Evagelon Anglican hell ;) [21:27] Aco: think about the fact that the term "homosexual" is today used as an anthropological or even ontological category [21:27] heiko, it is also usd in a moral catagory [21:28] heiko sin was used in both catagories then, so? [21:28] So can I get a list of mortal sisn, then? [21:28] Aco: they executed people who engaged in psuedosexual activity with others of the same gender [21:28] Heiko, yes, like sodomy [21:28] heiko hence the history of sodom [21:28] yuk [21:28] brb [21:28] Neuro: take the ten commandments, and change it to "I kill" etc [21:29] Aco: however the Hebrew anthropology could not tolerate such a category - they understood humanity is male and female; sex arises out of the encounter between the two [21:29] a no no [21:29] Any other "sexual" activity is seen as an abomination [21:29] thats a bit simplistic [21:30] It would be fun to know how many mortal sisn I have committed. [21:30] depends on if 'sex' is just for pro-creation or not Heiko [21:30] sins, even [21:30] heiko, they saw humanity existing in two forms, amle and female, and to have an encouter of two of the same forms would be a rejection of the created order [21:30] Aco: we should be carefull about uncritically adopting pagan language; we sometimes find ourselves on the wrong side of the argument that way [21:31] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split. [21:31] heiko, I will aopt language that is accurate regardless of the source, plato was a pagan, did not stop him from doing geometry well [21:31] asha: not at all [21:31] kyrby (ircle@pluto.maverick.net) joined #Apologetics. [21:31] heiko to worry about the source of the term rather than the truth of the termis to border on, if not commit a genetic fallacy [21:31] Well..I didn't always respect my father..I guess that's a mortal sin, then. [21:32] What about fornication? [21:32] Acolyte: so you would agree with the current idea that "homosexual" is an anthropological category? [21:32] heiko what do you mean? [21:32] genetic fallacy? [21:32] heiko homosexuality is an act of the will, the mouth and the hands, thought word and deed. It can lead to a condition, but itis a sin none the less [21:33] Acolyte: I mean a category equivalent to "male" or "female" [21:33] I must say, I'd like to see someone locate "mortal sin" (much less "immortal soul") in scripture! cant be done [21:33] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics. [21:33] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [21:33] heiko genetic fallacies attack the source rather thant he valdity of the argument or the soundnes of the premiesses [21:33] Is heterosexuality an act of will, too? [21:33] neuro no [21:34] neuro heterosexuality is the creatoed order [21:34] Acolyte: I don [21:34] AndBut Onan knew that the childrenwould not belong to him, so when he had intercoursewith his brothers widow, he let the semen spill on the ground . God was not happy, so he killed him. Sex sin is a big area,huh ? [21:34] 't think that's what I'm doing [21:34] I'm not really engaging in etimology here [21:34] I don't see any difference between the two in that sense. [21:35] heiko the Scripture does, the church always has, thats enough for me, god has spoken. case closed [21:35] hey ace,we have to go! [21:35] I'm more concerned with the current usage of the term [21:35] ace: he killed him because he decieved her, NOT because he spilled semen!!!!!!! [21:35] please! [21:35] Ace - Onan's sin was rebellion. Not sex sin. [21:35] You can be a homosexual but never act on it...just like heterosexuality. [21:35] Acolyte: the scripture does know the term "homosexual" [21:35] how do you know that is the whole case, and not both ? [21:35] neuron you can have lusts in that way true, so? [21:35] heiko it does not? [21:35] heiko it does not know the term Trinity, but it teaches the concept [21:36] heiko it does not know the term Theocratic rule, but it teaches the concept [21:36] hey, i need to go before kyrby kills me. see ya ! [21:36] Ace what do you mean? [21:36] heiko there is nothing wrong with using non-biblical terms [21:36] could have been both, but I dont see it [21:36] I dont buy this "every sperm is precious" doctrine [21:36] Xar (ian@as48s08.erols.com) joined #Apologetics. [21:36] Acolyte: unreasonable analogy [21:36] jeiko why? [21:36] well, the spilling of seed, look it up [21:36] hullo xar, do I know u? [21:36] lol! that sounds like brice wellington [21:37] Ace - the only sin spoken of in that passage is Onan's refusal to obey God and raise up an heir for his brother. [21:37] heiko if you claim it is an unreasonable anology, please prove thatit is so [21:37] Acolyte: the theology scripture points toward trinity; the anthropology of scripture does not point toward an anthropological category "homosexual" [21:37] heiko thatis question begging [21:37] precisely [21:37] To the contrary: the reason that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is that humanity is created male and female [21:37] heiko in light of the historical context and the writings of the jewish ppl outside of Scripture, they did have a concept of homosexcual acts as being evil [21:38] Acolyte: can only give $.10 answers on irc. [21:38] hieko, so it is an abomination either way. call it laying man with man, a bed buddy or homosexuality, its still sin [21:38] Acolyte: of course - fully agreed! [21:38] Aco: key term "acts" [21:38] Homosexuality isn't sin itself any more than heterosexuality is. [21:38] heiko, so? evil acts produce a denegernate state as well [21:38] question: would it be a sin for a man to love and lie with another man, and yet have no sexual or lustful intent? [21:38] Neuro sure is [21:38] ace-62 (jroach@saturn.maverick.net) left irc: Leaving [21:39] Sure isn't. The Bible talks about acts, not tendencies. [21:39] Acolyte: consider the current arguments put forth by the "homosexual" advocates [21:39] why is it evil? and define "evil" whose evil? the popes evil or you evil [21:39] neuro God them male and female, one for the other, not one for itself and the image of itself, which is pure seflishness [21:39] your [21:39] kyrby (ircle@pluto.maverick.net) left #Apologetics. [21:39] Homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex. [21:39] heiko I have [21:39] i.e., "I can't help being this way, God made me this way" [21:39] A heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex. [21:39] loki God defines evil [21:39] Neuro: is thinking of adultery with a woman adultery>Jesus says it is [21:39] heiko the Homosecual advocates do not have arguments, they have fallacies tho [21:40] one can be a homosexual and never act upon it and still have committed the sin [21:40] So every heterosexual is a sexual sinner, Evangelon? [21:40] Evangelon being in a state of sin is sin enough [21:40] aco: yes but you have to prove god...until then i define evil, you define evil, everyone defines evil differently [21:40] Neuro: of course, I am not saying heteros are any LESS sinful! [21:41] loki if there is no god, is there evila t all? [21:41] So just being sexual is a sin in itself? [21:41] evangelon u mean normal ppl [21:41] a homosexual is simply committing a uniquely loathesome sin to God [21:41] neuro no [21:41] Because we are attracted to people? [21:41] Acolyte: If people/societly choose to define things as evil, yes [21:41] no, I didnt say that I said Adultery [21:41] evangelon nicely put, well said [21:41] thats not "just being sexual" [21:41] being sexual is the very CORE of Gods plan for us. But there is appropriate and inappropriate [21:41] asha fine, but if there is not a God, the term has no meaning. [21:41] So homosexual who do not act are not any more sinful that heterosexuals who do not act. [21:42] Neuro correct, that is why they can be in the church as good standing members at that point [21:42] our Messiah arrived through a sexuality so mystical few can comprehend it [21:42] only Mary understood it fully, if even [21:42] aco: well not a "1" evil...evil = what someone thinks is evil [21:42] hail mary! [21:42] Acolyte: many people who do not believe in God, still have concepts of good and evil, I would bet that there aren't many who DON'T label some things good, and other things BAD [21:42] Neuro: you beg the question I'm trying to refute here - whether such categories are real or invented [21:42] Loki huh? [21:42] I would say a Homosexual who does not act is as sinful as a Hetero who does not act... both contemplate sin [21:42] That's what I was getting at, Evangelon. [21:42] Asha that is not the point, they have tho concepts but they do not hold them comsistently, which is the point, they are inconsistent in holding those views [21:42] Evangelon: what if the homosexual couple truly loved and respected eachother? [21:43] Acolyte: would you agree with this...? [21:43] however, when the Heterosexual commits adultery, he is not in the same catagory as a homosexual who commits sodomy... it is another sin altogether, of a different sort [21:43] Evangelon: do you think that God would look on it as sin? [21:43] but both are sin [21:43] acolyte: some people consider abortion "evil" some dont...there is no 1 universal set of rules that says what is good what is bad what tastes good .etc.. [21:43] asha: means nothing [21:43] heiko agree with what? [21:43] It is God who defines and determines the proper context and use of our bodies [21:43] what if I loved and respected a person I urinated on? Does that remove the perversion? [21:43] Acolyte: I believe in no God, but under no circumstances would I ever hit a child, I think that is EVIL [21:43] A different sins? Is there a grade system...like sodomy is a grade A sin and adultery grade B? [21:43] loki, fine, no universal agreement, but I am not asking aboutthat, i am asking even if there were agreement, what doe the term NAME, what does it refer to? [21:43] KKron (KKron@www-44-204.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:43] Neuro: sins come in shapes and sizes [21:43] KKron (KKron@www-44-204.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [21:43] types and kinds [21:43] asha fine, but why not? why is it evil? [21:44] Acolyte: It shows a lack of respect and honour [21:44] Well, I can't remember a classified list of sins from NT, maybe you can provide one. [21:44] Acolyte: most of your God's laws are centered around those two things [21:44] aco: ahhh [21:44] Acolyte: enjoy the midi? [21:44] once a man and a man or a woman and a woman engage in sex, they have dishonored themselves, God, and nature [21:44] Asha, what is honor? where in nature is honor? honor is a METAphysical catagory, without a Transedenat god, there are not METAphyscial objects [21:44] Also I understand no sin (except for one) is so grave that it takes your salvation away. [21:45] asha no, the are centered around one thing, God himself [21:45] Neuro: I didnt say it would take away salvation [21:45] "there is a sin unto death" said John [21:45] asha: correct, namely around our relationship with God and with our fellow human beings [21:45] Acolyte: I have a fairly good idea of what honour is, even though I was brought up godless :) [21:45] ahsa without a metaphysical referent foe a metaphysi al TERM,the metaphysical TERM is meaingless, so an appeal top honor is meaningless [21:45] So why do you care about this alleged classification of sins, then> [21:45] Acolyte: did you agree with my statement? [21:45] BRB [21:45] asha fine, what does the term name in nature? [21:45] Acolyte: Why do you pick apart my statements like that instead of listening them? [21:45] heiko I did not even see yor statement [21:45] Xar (ian@as48s08.erols.com) left #Apologetics. [21:46] asha I listened then picked them apart [21:46] Aco: page back [21:46] Neuro: well, personally, I dont :) but it was in discussion. Sins will bring us loss, according to Paul, when Christ judges us [21:46] heiko re-post [21:46] Acolyte: wolves have respect and honour, they do not take more than they need, they usually kill of the weak of the hunted packs of caribou etc [21:46] asha thatis only because nature causes them to do so. it is a chemical process in them, not "honor" [21:46] Acolyte: this is biological, not concious, but it is still nature respecting nature is a sense [21:46] I have a hard time imgaining a sin conversion table...like how many sodomies equals the sin content of one murder etc. [21:46] however, I do believe the sin of homosexuality goes so contrary to everything about God and his way, that a so-called Christian Homosexual is a self deceieved person of the highest order [21:46] asha in a Naturalistic worldview without a god, consciousness is part of the biological [21:47] Acolyte: they HONOR being wolves by behaving like wolves [21:47] Acolyte:It is God who defines and determines the proper context and use of our bodies [21:47] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [21:47] just as an adulterer who is a Christian who tried to Christianize his sin in himself as a lifestyle choice is just as hoplessly lost [21:47] asha, why not call it shit? it is still a purely biological function [21:47] heiko I would agree there [21:47] But didn't you just say homosexuals can be good christians, evangelon? [21:47] Neuro: It doesnt work that way, but you're being silly, so... forget it [21:47] Acolyte: I think we agree more than you think. [21:47] heiko perhaps [21:47] no, I did not say homosexuals can be good christians [21:48] ;) [21:48] Evan:/names [21:48] asha biological functions are not good nor bad, they may be more or less efficient to survival, but they are not Good or evil they LACK metaphysical meaning or reference [21:48] oops [21:48] Acolyte: Yes, conciousness is a result of our biology to a large degree, but we do not need a god to realise that our brains are a lot different than the rest of the natural world's [21:48] Neuro: I believe the point was, earlier, that a homosexual could be a christian, and not act upon this sexuality, but only if seeking to reform [21:48] Acolyte: we have the power to define morality [21:48] but we never got that far [21:48] asha your brains are nt different in kind from nature, they are only different in organisation from other parts of natur [21:49] You said homosexuals are as sinful as heterosexuals... [21:49] asha you have the power of onlywhat nature dtermines you to do [21:49] Acolyte: we have a part in our brain that nothing else has [21:49] asha so? its still part of nature, still determined [21:49] Acolyte: not so, we choose what we do, and shape what we do with our own defined morality [21:49] asha, difference in organisation of matter does NOT produce a difference of KIND from matter [21:49] Neuro: no, I said an ADULTERR is not better than a homosexual in his sin [21:49] If you feel you were born homosexual it may me impossible to "reform"...so you would just have to be a celibate homosexual. [21:49] just different [21:49] asha your choices are pure biologial effects from nature [21:49] Acolyte: what are emotions? [21:49] Neuro correct, thats what the Church demands [21:50] Neuro: well, you could take that view and decieve yourself, I guess. But it isnt true. No one is born homosexual [21:50] asha in what paradigm? [21:50] asha in a non-theistic apradigm emotions are chemcial reacitons [21:50] Acolyte: define paradigm (my seventeen year old brain has stumbled) [21:50] asha paradigm=wroldview [21:51] asha in a non-theistic paradigm, emotions are chemcial reactions [21:51] or two coins :) [21:51] yuk yukyu k [21:51] Action: Heiko 's wroldview is dislexic [21:51] asha pronounced PARA-DIME [21:51] Acolyte: I know how it is pronouced, thanks for the def. [21:51] asha ok, just tryoing to help out [21:51] You said: I would say a Homosexual who does not act is as sinful as a Hetero [21:51] who does not act... both contemplate sin [21:51] Acolyte: I know, I thank you for it [21:51] Neuro: there is a difference between someone courting thoughts of homosexuality in themselves, and a celebate, who thinks himself gay... and really is not, but is merely confused. I believe God is merciful [21:52] Neuro: yes, I said that whats your point (Im missing it) [21:52] asha if only nature exists and there is nothing other than nature, then emotions are chemical reactions in the body [21:52] Acolyte: so when a baby is taken away from its mother, and the mother cries, that is biological? [21:52] not heterosexuality, but adultery FROM a heterosexual. Man, are you just muckin with me on purpose? get with it. the sin is adultery, not being hetero! [21:52] Acolyte: they have not proved that yet :) [21:52] Well, later you said something about a homosexual needing to seek "reform"...doesn't that apply to heteros, too? [21:52] asha, in a non-thesitic paradigm, what else is there to a body that what is physical? if only the physical exists, and emotins result, then it has to come from the physical [21:52] asha, but as a naturalist, they hold to it [21:53] And the sin is sodomy, not homosexuality. [21:53] re [21:53] lurksec [21:53] Acolyte: scientists still research whether our reactions are chemical.... or something more.... [21:53] neuro the lust of the flesh is sin enough [21:53] Neuro: a hetero who is adulterous? lord yes! [21:53] asha answer me this then [21:53] just as much, it applies [21:53] Evang: you will have to carry your argument with Neuro into the next millenium [21:53] asha if they are not chemcials, are they apre of nature or something outside of anture? [21:53] asha if they are not chemcials, are they apre of nature or something outside of nature? [21:53] Is every heterosexual lustful, Acolyte? [21:53] sodomy/homosexuality.... I dont see much diff [21:53] neuro every human is [21:54] all "covet" that is lust [21:54] we are all covetous [21:54] ippi (ljm973@sunnyuser015.ncw.net) joined #apologetics. [21:54] hi all [21:54] The act is the difference...a homosexual is exactly like any other human beings...except for the preference of sexual attraction. [21:54] I would say that they would be a part of nature either way [21:54] we might actually keep ourselves from all other sins, but we all covet [21:54] No wait, let me rephrase that dammit [21:54] Neuro: that attratction alone is a sin [21:54] just as if I thought of another mans wife, that is a sin [21:54] asha if it is not chemcials that cause them, is there something outside of nature oir only something in nature that causes them? [21:54] before I even do it [21:55] ippi (ljm973@sunnyuser015.ncw.net) left #apologetics. [21:55] ahsa then even so, whaty governs things in nature? [21:55] I say, either way (both inside or outside as you put it) they are INSIDE [21:55] Acolyte: I'm not sure I buy what you're saying to Asha. It is conceivable to have an anthropocentric worldview that allows for superbiological phenomena [21:55] heiko fine, but not if you are a naturalist [21:55] Acolyte: true [21:55] All heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex..thus that attraction is a sin? [21:55] heiko, a naturalist paradigm excludes the metaphyscial [21:55] Acolyte: If your god exists, you are not separate from him are you? [21:55] Neuro: dont be silly. Adultery is the sin [21:55] asha yes I am seperate from god in essence and distinct from him in person [21:56] heterosexuals function according to the natural order, homosexuals function counter to it [21:56] You are playing with the words...because I see no difference between attractions. [21:56] it is the taking of another wife that is the sin, not being a hetersexual. [21:56] asha but what governs things in nature? natural law correct? if that is so, then in your paradigm everything, including your ideas are determined, there is no way to verify them since they are determined, hence all your ideas in your worldview are... [21:56] meaningless [21:56] being a homosexual IS a sin, becayse on has sexual lust in the heart that is against the natural order and the law of God [21:56] Evangelon: is it within the natural order for me to have relations with a female prostitute? [21:56] Well, most homosexuals didn't choose to be that way any more than heterosexuals. [21:56] Acolyte: try this one on for size and tell me if it fits..... The universe is 'god' playing hide and seek with himself..... he is hiding in everything, including us, waiting for us to figure out that we are actually 'god' playing with himself. We are not separate from 'god', we can not be separated from 'god' because 'god' is everything [21:57] neuro that is not necessarily so [21:57] Heik: that would be yet another sin, a misuse of your body and that other person [21:57] Neuro: Do you like men? We are not born gay! [21:57] THAT is a panthiestic view. [21:57] Asha that is absurd, its called pantheism for one and has numerious problems, woudl you care to hear some of them? [21:57] I love men. I certainly have no desire to have sex with one :) [21:57] Evangelon: so there is more to the context of "sex" than just male and female? [21:57] When did YOU choose to be heterosexual, then? [21:57] asha brb [21:57] and to think such would be sin [21:57] Acolyte: so I take it it doesn't fit? [21:57] bbl [21:57] Loki_ (lrj91331@Bayou.UH.EDU) left #apologetics. [21:57] just as much sin as if I thought of another man wife [21:57] I can't remember choosing anything. [21:58] Heiko: not sure what you mean [21:58] gender? [21:58] neuro a lack of chose does not entail a lack of responsibility, I did not choose to be a sinner, but I am responsible for being one nontheless [21:58] asha no it does not fit. [21:58] Evangelon: I'm trying to show you the inadequacy of the categories you are using [21:58] asha if we are god, and if God knows all, how come we don't all know we are god? [21:58] Heiko: how so elaborate please [21:58] Evangelon: think about the creation narrative [21:58] It seems that some children are born with no conscience. Do we cater to their condition and try to improve their self image by calling their condition an acceptable alternate life style? [21:58] Acolyte: it wouldn't be much of a game of hide and seek if everyone knew where everyone was hiding would it? [21:59] asha secondly pantheism denies logic, if there is no logic, then what the HELL are you talking about? it is a meaningless position since it denies logic [21:59] Acolyte: why are you swearing at me? [21:59] Evangelon: why use the term "sexuality" anyway? [21:59] Asha and God could nto hide form himself since he knows all now could he? [21:59] Children ARE born without conscience. [21:59] asha, it was for emphasis [21:59] Evangelon: to what, exactly, does the term refer? [21:59] Heiko: because that is the framework Neuro was working with in the discussion [21:59] neuro prove it? [21:59] Acolyte: i have kind of a different view of God than you I guess [21:59] asha yes, I am a Theist [21:59] Evangelon: exactly! [21:59] Infants are pretty much empty slates...except for some biological imperatives. [21:59] Evangelon: but that is a PAGAN framework! [21:59] sexuality refers to the procreative or erotic orientation of an individual [21:59] Neuro, all men are bron sinners [21:59] Acolyte: Why were you swearing at me? [22:00] asha, it was for emphasis only [22:00] Heiko: saying it doesnt make it so explain yourself [22:00] Evangelon: what is "orientation"? [22:00] Evangelon: is it something that transcends genitalia? [22:00] direction.... what one is "tuned to" [22:00] As a parent you can mold your child to be a homicidal sociopath. [22:00] Does it transcend human flesh? [22:00] Heiko: of course [22:01] Heiko: dont ask a question if you dont want me to answer [22:01] Evangelon: then it is bovine feces [22:01] yes, sexuality transcends human flesh [22:01] I do want you to answer [22:01] Heiko: nicely put :) [22:01] and yet, it can express itself most profoundly in flesh [22:01] The amount of "conscience" depends a lot on raising and parenting. [22:01] and does [22:01] asha fine, to advance the argument to argue that everything is physical, is futile and self refuting since if that is so, then all ideas are determined chemcial processes which are meaningless since there is no way to check the t ruth of them, hence truth.. [22:01] Neuro: you did not answer my ques? I was wondering why you defend gays? We are not born gay, that is a view not found in the bible, if it is I want to see it. [22:01] cannot be known in that paradigm, which makes it obviously FALSE [22:01] karen-1 (ajanssen@irv-ca8-03.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for karen-1[irv-ca8-03.ix.netcom.com] [22:01] no, you dont want me to answer if you shoot ten questions at once and then move to the next set of questions [22:02] Evangelon: that is a fine rendition of the pagan view. But what does it have to do with a distinctly Christian anthropology? [22:02] It doesn't matter if you are born gay or not...if you did not choose to be gay then it's something that isn't your fault. [22:02] Heiko, what is pagan about his view? [22:02] Evangelon: they were the same question, put differently. Sorry [22:02] hieko, pagans had a number of views correct ad the Early Fathers coorectly noted [22:02] Heiko: you speak as though there is a "third gender" from which we can bounce logic and illogic off of in considering sexuality. There is not [22:03] there are but two genders, and one procreative process for those two [22:03] Neuro: scripture please? Born homosexual? [22:03] evangelon amen [22:03] out of this, sexuality is chiefly defined and exampled [22:03] Acolyte: by Pagan I simply mean not arising out of a Christian theological perspective [22:03] heiko fine, but what do u cnsider pagan about his view? [22:03] Evangelon: YES!!!!!!!!!!! [22:04] Acolyte: namely that it is not Christian. [22:04] Neuro: God made man and women and then the homosexual? [22:04] erotic nature can and does transcend the flesh. Yes, I can erotically love another man. To express that grand emotion in the flesh would be homosexuality [22:04] Are you saying all homosexuals made a conscious choice in their lives, kc135? [22:04] hieko one gener is made for the other and vice versa, the generas are not made to mirro eachother, they are for the knowldge of the OTHER, homosexuality seeks for an image of itself, it is pure perverted selfishness [22:04] to contemplate anything even akin to the natural order of human procreative design is sin [22:04] Acolyte: that it has arisen out of the psychology movement, not out of reflective Christian anthropology [22:04] Yes! [22:05] Heiko: even the name of God manifests the male and the female in cooperative qualities: YAH WEH [22:05] Hieko funny, the Christian Fathers agree with us, they kinda predate Freud, by oh......150 yrs at least [22:05] 1500 even [22:05] Evangelon: what would be required for that? [22:05] Neuro: they may have made a grave mistake though [22:05] I maintain that many homosexualks do not know here the attraction comes from, they certainly did not choose it....thus a big struggle to undertanbd what's going on. [22:05] Aco: touche!!! [22:05] :) [22:05] Neuro: hmmmmmmm ok [22:05] Heiko: sorry, missed it. required for what? [22:06] Acolyte: you should be more cognizant of the framework the fathers were working with, rather than imposing a 20th century one upon them [22:06] heiko tha Father of the Church, every CHurch council, every Reformer and Scholastic theologian, every jewish theologian of the 1st and 2nd temple that we know of syas youa re wrong, and they ALL Predate modern psychology. [22:06] if there was a third gender, this discussion could take on another level as you suppose, Heiko. But there is not [22:06] Evangelon: too far back. [22:07] Evangelon: that's my point!!!! [22:07] heiko after reading 40+ volumes of the Fathers, I think I am very familair with the Fathers, how about u? [22:07] Alcuin2 (hmmm@dial13.vonl.com) joined #apologetics. [22:07] Heiko: maybe we agree I cannot tell [22:07] hullo alcuin [22:07] Acolyte: I read the Bible many many times before I realized that I read more into it than out of it. [22:07] asha u there? [22:07] greetings Alcuin2 [22:07] i'm not the same alcuin that visits this channel [22:07] Everybody does, Heiko [22:07] Acolyte: I am, just reading the scroll for a little while [22:07] alcuin ic [22:07] I believe that sexuality transcends both flesh AND Gender, but that does not mean that IN GENDER there is not a profound and "overt" sexuality that is the norm [22:07] heiko fine, that is why we have the CHurch [22:08] asha where r u? [22:08] There is no such thing as a "unbiased" or "literal" reading of any text. [22:08] what's the topic? [22:08] Evangelon: on what basis to you believe that sexuality transcends flesh? [22:08] Acolyte: I am in Bellingham, WA USA but am REALLY from B.C. Canada [22:08] neuro so? but there is a right reading [22:08] asha IC, are you m or f? [22:08] It is certainly not a scriptural one, is it? [22:08] But nobody knows what it is, acolyte. [22:08] Heiko: because the erotic is first and foremost an element of mind, not flesh [22:08] Acolyte: I am female [22:08] erotic and procreative are two different unvierses [22:08] Evangelon: what is the locus of the mind? [22:08] nuero do you know everyopnes mind to know that no one knows? fallacy [22:08] though they often intertwine [22:08] Acolyte: would I be correct in assuming that you are male? [22:08] asha u sound it [22:08] locus? [22:09] asha youwould be correct, as I surely sound it [22:09] Aco: yes :) [22:09] Do you read everyone's mind to know WHO knows, acolyte? [22:09] asha I am some yrs your sienor as well [22:09] Evangelon: i.e., where is the mind? [22:09] Admittedly, I cannot claim that my perception of the erotic human comes from anything scriptural, but from myself alone [22:09] Aco: this I realise from the way that you speak.... may I ask your age? [22:09] So...we don't know who has the correct interpretation. [22:09] karen-2 (ajanssen@irv-ca8-20.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:09] neuro, no, but I did not make a universal claim that can not be verified, u did, and hence committed a fallacy [22:09] Heiko: the mind is an etherial portion of the Spirit, it has no locale [22:09] Evangelon: EXACTLY! [22:09] Hallo Karen [22:10] Evangelon: I disagree. [22:10] evangel non-sptial entities lack location by defintion [22:10] Heiko: elaborate on what you DO think [22:11] asha I am 7 yrs your elder [22:11] I think the mind is an emergent property of the brain. [22:11] neruo HAHHZHAHHAH [22:11] neruo still physicalism [22:11] Evangelon: We are not properly defined by introspection...when we define ourselves by introspection, we turn from God and God's definition given to us in creation. That life is a lie. [22:11] asha, so, what do you believe? and why? [22:11] As far as I know everyone needs a brain to have a mind. It's a prerequisite. [22:11] Acolyte: I have not defined my paradigm (new word, thanks to you) as of yet..... I believe in some things though, mostly respect [22:11] heiko the image can be discrend by conscience tho [22:12] asha what r they adn why? [22:12] Acolyte: respect allows room for everything to be what it is [22:12] asha I am a christian btw [22:12] Acolyte: can it? or is it always haunted by the spectre of sinful distortion? [22:12] Acolyte: so I gathered... heehe :) [22:12] Heiko: I do not entirely agree with that. But then again, Im not sure I follow you [22:12] asha respect or indifference? [22:12] MareBlair (MareBlair@www-41-19.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:12] Acolyte: respect-exactly the opposite of the way that most things are done in [22:12] heiko if you ask Calvin he would sya yes, ask Thomas and he would say no [22:12] Evangelon: can you sustain your own life? [22:12] And since I haven't observed a soul or a spirit in any way I can't say how they would affect my mind. [22:13] asha what does the term name? [22:13] I can function according to what I know I need, ie, food, etc, and sustain it until it is genetically predisposed to decay [22:13] Hello. Can someone explain (very generaly) what rational thheism is all about? [22:13] Acolyte: respect - respecting that fish need clean water to live, that humans need food to live, that smoke fills our air with toxins that cannot be taken away [22:13] mareblair rational theism, belief in God that is rational or logical [22:14] Acolyte: My uncertainty with Calvin is always overshadowed by my uncertainty of Thomas [22:14] asha fine, what does the term name? [22:14] heiko it shows [22:14] I am not self-generating, of course [22:14] Oh...I thought rational deism is the rationality in understanding the irrationality of faith. [22:14] I am not God [22:14] asha ok let me clarify [22:14] Evangelon: in other words, no. You are predisposed to decay. then what. Can you raise yourself from the dead? [22:14] Heik: no [22:14] Because it's hard to imagine a logical basis for faith. [22:14] asha what does the term dog name? a four legged furry thing that barks etc etc etc. what does repects name in nature? [22:14] point.... [22:15] Acolyte: the natural order of things [22:15] Alcuin2 (hmmm@dial13.vonl.com) left #apologetics. [22:15] asha, so respect names nature? [22:15] Evangelon: If this true, and you acknowledge it because you say "I am not God", then does it not also make sense that you cannot, in endeffect, define yourself? [22:16] Acolyte: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... is flawed because psycho killers might like having their noses cut off, so they'll do the same to you :) [22:16] Would the idea of a god that is not a being someplace else but a force in this world qualify as rational deism? [22:16] This is a pretty funny channel. [22:16] heiko we kno things when we know them as God knows them [22:16] Evangelon: is it not the creator who defines his creation just as it is the creator who sustains his creation? [22:16] mareblair no, that weould be a type of pantheism [22:16] brb [22:16] Acolyte: good point; hold that thought [22:16] Heik: only I can define myself, for myself. There is not other way. If I have supernatural revelation, that is entirely quartered in my own being, and only by faith could another come to see... yes, I define myself, mentally, s piritually [22:16] So what is rational theism, then? [22:17] I see what you're saying, but we have no choice but to define ourselves, if I understand how you mean "define" [22:17] Action: Acolyte is away talking on the phone [22:17] MareBlair (MareBlair@www-41-19.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:17] Evangelon: Wrong! The claim to self definition is as dubious and misdirected as the claim to self-sustainance! [22:17] perhaps, but what alternative does one have?3 [22:17] Evangelon: Don't you see? I is the sin of Eden! [22:18] yes, I realize that.... no need for elementary principles, here [22:18] Evangelon: alternative: the revelation of God in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ! [22:18] but beyond what I cannot control, how else may I "define" myself? [22:18] Heiko: well, of course!!!!!! you suppose I was stating something ABOVE that? Im not following your intent, I dont think [22:18] Action: Neuro smells sophistry in the air [22:18] heiko we kno things when we know them as God knows them [22:19] I was speaking "aside" from what is reveled of Christ [22:19] but even then, what I intake thru my senses about Jesus Christ, is still trapped within my self-defining self, is it not? [22:19] So what is rational theism, then? [22:19] hence, the Holy Spirit [22:19] hence, there is a supernatural [22:19] Evangelon: If God has become human for our salvation, then it is to Christ that we turn for our definition of what it means to be human, for it is to Christ that we turn in order to turn toward the Creator! [22:20] Heiko: I agree [22:20] neuro-rational Theism the belief in a Deity that ius Trasendant and immanent and has maxiaml greatness and is believed in on a rational basis [22:20] So to be human onw must collect a gang of followers and roam the countryside preaching? [22:20] but this originated with me saying I have no scriptural ideal about erotic humanity, and therefore, I have no choice but to contemplate it through myself. There is a mystic erotic nature with Christ, but not entirely human as m yself [22:21] Evangelon: that is why we must see through the eyes of faith; it is not that we embrace Christ who has come to us, but that HE has embraced us! [22:21] What is this alleged rationa basis? [22:21] Neuro: no silly goose :) [22:21] Well...that's what Jesus did...;) [22:21] erotic humanity as opposed to or exclusive to procreative sexuality, as you wanted the two refined in definition [22:21] Heiko: again, I would agree [22:21] Evangelon: I don't know what you mean by "mystic erotic nature with Christ" [22:22] Neuro: Jesus was exceptional because he didn't share the flaws of regular humans.... greed, anger, jealousy etc [22:22] Suppressed homoerotic attarction to jesus? [22:22] lol [22:22] Jesus got angry. [22:22] I mean there is a "commonplace" erotic nature we must all consider in ourselves, that exists apart from sin, lust and procreation. Christ does not example this for us, so, we must seek to und erstand it ourselves [22:22] he does example a MYSTIC erotic nature: ie, Song of Solomon [22:23] Evan: I'm not sure what's mystic about Song of Solomon. It's just Hebrew Luv poetry [22:23] God is certainly an erotic being, would you not agree? Judging from Song of Solomon alone, and its grand symbolism of Christ/Church [22:23] SoS has symbolism? [22:23] but it is procreative in nature, and not "solitary", so it cannot be examined as "singular human erotic nature" at all... [22:24] BITE YOUR TONGUE! its sheer prophecy!. [22:24] Oh pleez you people spook me! [22:24] SoS not prophetic? just poetry?????????????? [22:24] Action: Evangelon falls over [22:24] Sheesh...you can't even write a love poem without someone making up grandiose mystic claims about it. [22:25] Evan: I cannot agree to such an assertion, but I do note that God's use of sexual imagery comes to it's highpoint in the image of marraige between a man and a woman [22:25] Quick someone pick him up [22:25] God is the lover in pursuit of his love... he is the lover taking his "dove" into the clefts of the rock to adore her form [22:25] the bride of Christ, the church... [22:25] That is your interpretation of the poem. [22:25] hear hear Neuro! [22:25] Heiko: yes, and SoS is simply a Hebraic example of it and very prophetic [22:25] A poem is a poem is a poem. It is art. [22:26] well, whatever... thats like saying what God said to Eve was not prophetic. [22:26] poetry alone? come on [22:26] Can you also give me theologically correct interpretation of the paintings of Picasso? [22:26] Evangelon: this is true, but it transcends human flesh in metaphor only, and that so that it will penetrate human flesh ( no pun intended) [22:26] neuro confussion [22:26] Ask what jews think about SoS...they should know...;) [22:27] Moron, Picasso was not a prophet of God. Im not going to discuss such stupidity [22:27] Oh, you never revealed the rational basius of belief, acolyte [22:27] Heik: yes, I agree [22:27] Picasso is art, SoS is art. [22:27] neuro I am on the phone,when I come back I will [22:27] Petrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:27] nonsense, neuro. SoS is the Word of God. Picasso is art [22:27] greetings Petrel [22:27] Evangelon: gotta hang up on this one nite-nite time [22:27] hello [22:27] Word of God cannot be art? [22:28] Evangelon: nice chatting with you tho [22:28] one expressed humanity, the other expresses divinity through humanity [22:28] you too Heik [22:28] Evangelon: hope I've stimulated your intellect as much as you've stimulated mine. ;) [22:28] Neuro: are you just a moron who likes to torment typists? stop it [22:28] I never said such and you know it go blow [22:28] If SoS is a poem it is art. [22:28] you have Heik :) [22:28] shut up! [22:28] Heiko (proximity@son15.mc.duke.edu) left irc: (Don't forget me or I'll haunt you in your nightmares!) [22:28] Im tied of your childish word games [22:29] they make no point [22:29] No, I just like to coax out more of your intriguing interpretations, evangelon [22:29] Evangelon: are you Christian? [22:29] obivously, it is "artistic".... geeez [22:29] it is, before that, PROPHESY [22:29] Asha: I am of Christ [22:29] Evangelon: Then be patient [22:29] kitty (70712.662@dialin24.datanet.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [22:29] Does the Bible itself say it is prophesy...or why is it so obvious to you? [22:29] Evangelon: and respect Neuro's words, even if they taunt [22:29] asha: I am a Christian, not perfect :) [22:29] Evangelon: practice being perfect, [22:30] Ok...I'll write a note...calling someone a moron is Christian...;) [22:30] Evangelon: perfection doesn't just drop from the sky [22:30] what a silly topic. would someone explain "rational theism" to me. [22:30] no, I am not called to "respect" someone who is merely trying to drive me nuts with endlessly dumb questions he KNOWS has no purpose [22:30] Evangelon: turn the other cheek [22:30] How do you know they have no purpose? [22:31] Christians are capable of every evil as anyone... [22:31] Asha - and when both cheeks are bloody? [22:31] Because I'm trying to find out where you get sure sure interpretations. [22:31] Ter (Silvia174@ joined #Apologetics. [22:31] dont hold my Christianity up to me unless you're ready to die on the cross with sinless blood in doing so [22:31] Evangelon: yes, they are as capable, but they pride themselves on being good and kind [22:31] karen-2: offer your chest [22:31] asha: pride? thats a sin :) [22:31] hehe [22:31] Like this prophesy thing is very obvious to me...it is not so obvious to other people. [22:31] sorry, I was being Neuronesque [22:32] oops...very obvious to evangelon, not to otghers [22:32] Evangelon: I know.... I haven't met a very good Christian yet :) [22:32] Hey..this is #apologetics...so defend your faith ;) [22:32] Asha: nor have I, and I never will [22:32] :) [22:32] the point is not about being good. it's about *trying* [22:32] Nero: we were talking faith, we were entertaining your dumb question :) [22:33] So why is it so obvious that SoS is also prophesy? [22:33] Evangelon: but when a situation arises, and you can act 'Christian' act well, act mature and responsible/respectable, why do you choose to ignore those options and lash out in impatience? [22:33] because the precise same theme is given in the Prophecy of the Prophet Hosea [22:33] I was also enjoying your dumb ansers, evangelon. [22:33] and the outcome of the symbolism was fulfilled in the Hebrew peoples, and in Messiah Jesus [22:33] study it its very evident [22:34] kitty (70712.662@dialin24.datanet.ab.ca) left irc: cotton candy fingers and a snow cone mouth [22:34] asha: because I am human first, Christian second [22:34] That symbolism came from you, not form the poem. [22:34] Evangelon: what good are all these points, all of these 'facts' if you cannot understand the teaching of Jesus well enough to try to practice them? [22:34] my Christianity can fail me at any given time [22:34] Evangelon: part of being human is assuming responsibility for your actions [22:34] I will not apologize for being "irritated" by people who deliberately seek to irritate me [22:34] Anyone picking up SoS will just see love poetry. [22:34] I am taking full responsibility for my actions [22:34] Evangelon: do you ever hit your wife? [22:35] I have not blamed anyone, nor apologized for my actions [22:35] I accept them and stand by them [22:35] (assuming you have one) [22:35] Have you stopped beating your wife? [22:35] I believe honestly Neuro is here simply to irritate, nothing more [22:35] Neuro: pardon me? [22:35] Action: asha apologizes for dragging this on, but is trying to make a point [22:35] And all this other sophistry about anthropolgy was deeply meaningful? [22:35] bitwise (bit@tahoe-d34.foothill.net) joined #apologetics. [22:36] Heiko brought that up, not me [22:36] Heik and Aco, not me [22:36] Evangelon: if your wife irritated you badly one day, and you lashed out with your fist, would you apologize? [22:36] whats this about my wife? [22:36] Besides, if you don't answer meaningful questions I'll be forced to make up stupid questions ;) [22:36] Evangelon: even though she WAS being irritating, you reacted in a bad way [22:36] yuk yuk Neuro [22:36] Asha: Im sorry, I find that question offensive and absurd [22:36] what are you getting at>? [22:36] I still don't know what rational theism is. [22:37] bye [22:37] Petrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) left #apologetics. [22:37] you believe beating my wife equal to being irritated by Neuro?? [22:37] Evangelon: sorry, it was not meant to be offensive....I do not know if you hit your wife or not, that's why I asked you... [22:37] Evangelon: striking out in anger either way [22:37] Asha: I do not believe being irritated when one IS irritated is reacting in a BAD WAY thats cry-baby Christianity and I do not buy it [22:38] "be angry and sin not" Jesus said [22:38] bitwise (bit@tahoe-d34.foothill.net) left #apologetics. [22:38] Evangelon: not just irritated, mean :) [22:38] Evangelon could make a whip and beat me...just like Jesus whipped some folks. [22:38] dont try to redefine human emotions as relates to sin or good or bad with me. I dont accept this "willowy christian" ideal [22:38] ah, now I was MEAN. ok :) [22:39] Lshing out probably made him feel better, asha.. [22:39] Neuro: like punching walls makes jealous boyfriends feel better [22:39] ok everyone chil out [22:39] I feel great :) [22:39] Frustration is so...frustrating. [22:39] asha: you have a thing about women and male violence, dont you? what is that all about? [22:40] when people are so whimpy that words are fists to them, humanity has little hope of any resolve [22:40] Evangelon: It is a huge issue in our society that is overlooked a lot [22:40] I don't mind...some things just seem to be so "obvious" to evangelon that questionign them appears stupid. Correct? [22:40] Evangelon: and especially effective, as people listen when it is talked about most of the time [22:41] I agree, but you are more or less ringing that bell here for no cause [22:41] did it get my point across? [22:41] And what is your cause? [22:41] Are you saving souls here? [22:41] Are you edifying yourself? [22:41] Neuro: nonsense and you know it. You KNOW you deliberately asked a dumb question of me, and it was the fifth time in a row, and the same kind of dumb question [22:42] Are you enjoying the discussions? [22:42] karen-2 (ajanssen@irv-ca8-20.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [22:42] Im here because Aco invited me and because the topic and original discussion was GOOD. Now I have two whiney people telling me how I should behave! [22:42] And what question was the one that broke your back? [22:42] EVERYONE CHILL OUT [22:42] I am amazed at the amount of hostility and the lack of respect on this channel. We are all human beings, [22:42] Thanks Aco, needed that [22:43] I haven't said anything about how you should behave. Call me a moron if it makes you feel better. [22:43] Neuro.... lets not get back into it. Picasso can sleep, ok? [22:43] Neuro stop it [22:43] asha: are there rules here? [22:43] Evangelon u 2 [22:43] or I will kick all of u [22:43] Yes, yes...kick everyone. [22:43] But explain rational basis first. [22:44] Neuro!sami@user1.channel1.com kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: u first [22:44] yes, lets get BACK to the topic [22:46] well... [22:46] thats one from the box [22:46] :) [22:46] who's next? [22:46] not me [22:46] please [22:46] asha talk in row [22:46] Neuro (sami@user1.channel1.com) joined #apologetics. [22:47] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:47] asha Jesus was quite unkind to people here and there. It is not a bad thing sometimes to be very harsg [22:47] harsh [22:47] Evangelon: it shows a lack of compassion and control [22:47] he called a samaritan woman a dog, but he did it knowing what would happen [22:47] no, not always [22:48] sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it is not [22:48] Evangelon: were you ever spanked? [22:48] huh? yes, sure [22:48] Evangelon: can you think of alternatives to spanking? [22:48] spanking is for one time of misbehavior alternatives are for others [22:48] one type (sorry bad typing) [22:48] Evangelon: so, hitting your kids is right in some situations? [22:49] spanking my kid in some situations is VERY important, yes [22:49] The proverbial rod. [22:49] and other times, it would be absurd [22:49] and wrong [22:49] Evangelon: give me examples [22:50] I can't really hit anybody...maybe it's a character flaw. [22:50] for example: my daughter once lifted a croquet mallet in order to kill her little brother! She needed immediate retribution and something very stunning and powerful, like a spanking, to realize the level of evil she was contemp lating [22:50] Evangelon: spanking doesn't teach the child anything but fear of you, and the need to be sneakier so that you don't catch them next time. It also teaches them that hitting is a solution [22:50] my mother spanked me for MANY things, and I thank her for it. It was needed [22:50] I learned [22:50] I would have disobeyed her continually if she had not [22:51] asha: Im sorry, that is a lot of liberal agenda nonsense-speak and I know better, as a parent, I know better [22:51] as a child who was spanked and learned, I know better [22:51] they will in turn, be more likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence to their own children [22:51] So you learned through fear, not understanding [22:51] I was never beaten but I didn't disobey, either. [22:51] When I did things wrong, my dad would speak to me, just to me, about what I had done, and WHY it was wrong [22:51] As a child who was not spanked and learned...what do I know? [22:51] Priveledges were taken away as punishment if I did something really bad...... [22:51] violence? you call spanking someones butt violence? pleeez [22:52] ok, Asha... question [22:52] back [22:52] showing that I earned what I got in life [22:52] Evangelon yes, spanking is violent [22:52] neuro the rational basis of theism is displayed in a number of arguements from reason and evidence [22:52] you speak to your child about playing with matches. They dont listen. You speak to them again. you ground them you do everything BUT spank them. Then they bvurn down the house [22:52] where do you go from there? [22:53] and next week, after the fire, when they burn down the neighbors house? Still, no spanking? No physical retribution? [22:53] Evangelon: Build a new one, teach your child about fire [22:53] neuro 1. Transendental Argument. 2. Ontological Argument. 3. Cosmological Argument. 4. Teleological argument 5. Argument from mind. 6. Argument frm the Resurrectionof Christ ect etc [22:53] Evangelon: if they insist on being arsenists, do you think that spanking them is going to stop them? [22:53] I dont think you have kids [22:53] my guess is, you do not [22:53] Evangelon: I am a nanny [22:54] asha, why is anything wrong or right morally? [22:54] once you have them you'll change your view trust me [22:54] asha, on what basis do yousay that spaking is wrong? [22:54] Acolyte: the effects that it has can be one way of judging it [22:54] nanny isnt the same, but I'll credit you 2 points :) [22:54] Acolyte: that it is violent, and in most cases, very innefective [22:54] Doesn't sound too rational to me, Acolyte. [22:54] asha, but those are your morals, not his, if there is not an objective law then those are just your personal fancies [22:54] in my case, the effect was good. !!!! [22:54] asha, do you know most cases? [22:55] Evangelon: spending 24 hours a day with children warrants more than two points.... I know you'll get that joke :) [22:55] asha that is not a verifiable claim and hence false [22:55] asha: I was being saracastic. But having your own brings a whole new set of emotions and how you react and act [22:55] Acolyte: Um, listen to yourself :) Hitting kids is right? Boy oh boy [22:55] asha do you know most cases? obviously not [22:55] Asha yeah, how about rape? [22:55] asha why is rape wrong? [22:55] Evangelon: I would treat them as gold.... i don't beat gold unless I want it to be thin and frail, and easily broken :) [22:55] I know if I engage myself in this topic we might get excited again. [22:56] Acolyte: It demonstrates a lack of respect and compassion, a lack of empathy [22:56] asha, why is rape wrong? its perfectly natural, part of nature. [22:56] Ive never known anyone spanked that had a negative result. Beaten, yes. Spankings, no [22:56] Neuro: ask if its art! [22:56] hehhe [22:56] I was never spanked and I can't see why I should have been. So my experience is different. [22:56] asha so? it is part of nature, pefectly natural [22:56] Acolyte: not part of our nature [22:56] Incidentally my wife was never spanked, either. [22:56] Acolyte: unless we choose to make it so [22:56] asha, so Cromagnion never raped??? HAHAHHA very funny [22:57] asha rape is perfectly natural in homo sapeiens as in ALL Primates [22:57] Acolyte: are we cromagnion? [22:57] asha: even animals physically "spank" their young even an animal knows this is needed sometimes [22:57] asha next you will tell me that neanderthal never killed either [22:57] Acolyte: we have mind, that makes rape un-natural [22:57] So naturally we cannot see any reason to use corporal punishment because we were just fine without it. [22:57] monkeys actually use their hands and do it on the butt [22:57] Acolyte: are we neandertahl? [22:57] So this arguemnt "it worked for me" can be used both ways. [22:57] Asha in a non-theistic paradigm there is no mind, only a brain, which is part of nature [22:57] Acolyte: we know that rape causes trauma and hurt, therefore we can CHOOSE not to do it [22:57] asha are we homo sapiens? are we not related to neanderthal? yes we are [22:58] asha and we can choose to do it equally [22:58] ask my little girl if she feels abused and she'll tell you, "No, I deserved it. I was being terrible and wouldnt listen" shes tuned in to whats going on [22:58] shes not beaten [22:58] Acolyte: saying that nature rapes, therefore it is allright that we discard what we know about trauma and hurt, is absurd and very odd of you [22:58] asha, trauma is part of natural existence as is rape [22:58] deserved to be hit? What a funny concept? [22:58] ! rather [22:58] spanking doesnt cause trama and hurt! [22:58] asha, if there is no god, everythingis permissable [22:58] is causes discipline and change [22:58] and do people deserve to get raped? [22:58] Spanking hurts...isn't that the whole point? [22:58] Evangelon so does talking [22:58] asha: were you abused as a child, or by someone recently? [22:58] physically? [22:58] asha, deserve? there is no deserve or justice in nature, just chemcial reactions [22:58] If you do something bad, I will hurt you, I will make you cry and regret it and never do it again...... wow [22:59] asha, I agree, talking is best in most situations, but there comes a point where the child will talk you to death and do as they please, and a spanking CAN change their direction [22:59] asha, the point I am trying to make is that as a theist I can consistenly say things are wrong in a REAL sense, you cnnot do so consistetly [22:59] asha, so you do something that causes pain, it is only a physical reaciton. it is neither good nor bad [22:59] all: I have to go and get a drink of water and cool down [22:59] I can only say in a societal human sense, acolyte [22:59] I am getting angry now, and I must excuse myself [22:59] be back in a bit [22:59] neuro soceity is still part of nature, still mere biology [22:59] Bleh. Non-theists have moral standards, too. [22:59] asha it is ok to be angry [22:59] I have to get off myself and prepare the pizza for the family. It was good talking to everyone. And if my kid reaches for that last slice, I WILL spank her :) [22:59] hahaha [23:00] kidding [23:00] nite all [23:00] Neuro not conssitetly they don't [23:00] Sure they do. [23:00] evangelon nice to meet u [23:00] Evangelon (Bodhi@ left irc: Leaving [23:00] neuro what are ethics then? [23:00] You can make up your own little consistent system ans stick to it. [23:00] neuro in what paradigm, ? [23:01] But non-theists cannot claim that their system has a universal, absolute basis. [23:01] neuro any making up of anything would be merely caused by nature. a chemcial reaciton [23:01] neuro they cannot claim that their system has ANY basis [23:01] neuro ethics are metaphysical, they are outside of nature, if you excluded god, the METAphyscial grounding for them, there are no ethics [23:02] neuro they are a prioi exlcuded [23:02] I don't think so. [23:02] =e priori even [23:02] neuro fine, but even that thought is chemcial reaciton [23:02] Ethis is a sytem of moral values. [23:02] neuro, if they are not part of nature,a mere thing, then what are they? are they part of nature or not? [23:03] neuro perhaps ethics and morals are becially equivocal in meaning [23:03] And I can undertand how that could come to be even without God. [23:03] neuro but what are morals? where are they? In nature or outside of nature? [23:03] It's a product of our thinking. [23:04] Neurois our thinking part of our biology, part of nature or something else outside of nature? [23:04] which? [23:04] And if our thinking comes from our mind...which is an emergent property of the brain..well...there you have it. [23:04] neuro emergent properties of physical things are still physical things determined by nature, hence they are meaningless [23:04] neuro they are governed by natural law, and hence determined [23:04] They have meaning if we think so... [23:04] there is no way to verify them since they are determined and any attempt tp veryify them would be determined to, and so on and so on [23:05] I don't yearn for "absolute" meaning. [23:05] neuro even if you thought they did, that too would be determined, and still meaningless [23:05] neuro I am not arguing over absolute meaing, I am saying youdon't have ANY meaing at all [23:05] berferd (berferd@roach.sac.mother.com) joined #apologetics. [23:05] So you are saying a brain is a deterministic system? [23:05] neuro chemcials are not ABOt things [23:05] neuro I am saying nature is a deterministic system that entails the brain [23:06] Who cares...people still seem to think there is meaning...that's enough for me. [23:06] Neuro soyou believe in a myth [23:06] I do? [23:06] Wow. [23:06] muero your paradigm makes knowledge and truth impossible but yet you are inconssitent and live a myth an illsuion that there is [23:06] Now, I don't know exatly how our minds come to exist...it seems plausible mind comes from the brain. [23:06] muero you say "who cares?", so you don't care about truth because your ssytem does not allow for truth or morals [23:07] neuro in a naturalistic system the mind IS the brain [23:07] I care about truth. [23:07] neruo but your system makes truth impossible by determination of chemcial processes [23:07] Dinoman (rmueller@ joined #Apologetics. [23:07] what does neuro claim? [23:07] since the accuracy of any proposition could never be known [23:07] Dinoman (rmueller@ left #Apologetics. [23:07] I think your arguemnt is a little bit confused. [23:07] berferd ethics without God [23:08] neuro perhaps itis, and perhaps it is not, if you would like to provbe it so, go for it [23:08] "prove"...proof are for mathematical arguments. [23:08] berferd which is like arguing rainw ithout water [23:08] neuro they are also rational terms [23:08] nod [23:08] neuro proof has many meaninings and is not limited to mathmatics [23:08] Hallo there, I'm back, and much cooler than before.... [23:09] hulo asha [23:09] Well, if I see morals as principls of cinduct in a society I don't see a need for God. [23:09] What are ethics without God? [23:09] ethics [23:09] Nuero but those morals are only chemcial products [23:09] berfed chemicals [23:09] I don't care if they are "just" chemical...that's enough. [23:09] ah, i see i am backtracking [23:10] neuro how can chemicals be ABOUT something? they are not [23:10] neuro but the point is that just because nature via chemcials disposes us toward something it does not make it right or wrong [23:10] If we are just chemicals, we are still managing to talk ABOUT something Acolyte [23:11] Right and wrong is relative. [23:11] neuro naturalism excludes ethics [23:11] neuro reletive to what? [23:11] Relative to the soceity where people live. [23:11] asha, no we are not talking about anythign if we are only chemcials [23:11] Then what are we doing Acolyte? [23:11] nuero so? that is merely reletive to the chemcial processes in those ppl and at those times. does not make them true or false [23:11] Some things that are right in Finland (my country of origin) would not be right in United States. [23:11] asha, well that is the point, we are NOT MERE CHEMICALS [23:12] Acolyte: you say that's what I believe, so I took that stance :) [23:12] neuro, fine, but in a non-theistic system, that would be because of chemical disposition and reaciton in nature [23:13] asha, any non-thesitic system reduces to this problem [23:13] Aco: you have a God, and still don't act according to what you feel is right and wrong [23:13] Well, you are talking about true and false in a way that is not valid in my system. [23:13] neuro morals in a non-theistic system would be merely a term to lable emotional effects of certain actions caused by chemcial processes in some bodies in nature [23:14] Yes, you could put it that way. [23:14] neuro there is no truth in your system because truth is a mtephysical construct and your system ecludes the metaphysical a priori [23:14] I have no problem seeing myself as a purely physical being. [23:14] Ethics are brought upon by culture, others, and religeon.. what else is there? chemicals? [23:14] asha what do u mean i don't? [23:14] ditto Neuro [23:14] I think that's YOUR highly personal definition of truth. [23:14] Acolyte: do you swear? [23:15] berferd in a non-theistic system culture, etc are all based on chemcial reaction, on biology and physics [23:15] neuro no, it is a philosophical construct actually [23:15] asha at times [23:15] asha, so? [23:16] For example, one could define truth "in accordance with fact or reality". [23:16] asha, why is swearing wrong? [23:16] neruo that is question begging [23:16] Maybe my definition of ethics are different than yours [23:16] Acolyte: saying God Damn for example. [23:16] berferd, perhaps [23:16] asha i do think god should dman some things, so? [23:16] Well, as far as I know different philosophers have different ideas about truth. [23:17] But I'm no philosopher. [23:17] asha I did not ask for an EXAMPLE of something, I asked why it would be wrong to do that sometyhing? [23:17] Aco - maybe it is for God to decide what to damn [23:17] neruo this is so, but they all have this problem, and this ia a big fight now inphilosophy, truth without god, they are rapidly coming to the conclusion that u can't have it without havig god no matter what your conception of tru th is [23:18] berferd perhaps I am an emissary of God? [23:18] They who? [23:18] neuro philosophers in general [23:18] Oh really. That's news to me. [23:18] neuro epistemologists in specific [23:18] neuro read more philosphy and it won't be [23:18] I like science more. [23:18] nuero science is based on philosophy [23:19] And My favorite philosopher Bertrand Russell doesn't quite agree with you ;) [23:19] neuro without an epistemology u cannot have sciencd [23:19] euro Russell, I have read him, but he i ssomewhat dated by now [23:19] Neuro, see Rorty, Plantinga and Quine [23:20] The way I see it physical sciences don't need theistic luggage. [23:20] berferd (berferd@roach.sac.mother.com) left #apologetics. [23:21] neuro, well perhaps so, but they do need an epistemology, which without theism to undergird it, science is not possible [23:21] newsong (newsong@perham-39.dialup.eot.com) joined #apologetics. [23:21] Well, Soviet scientists seemed to do fine in an atheistic framework. [23:22] neuro that is because atheism is false, if atheism were true, scien would not be possible because they could never prove that the cosmos is rational, they couldnever start DOING science [23:22] brb [23:22] hello friend...Acol... [23:22] hullo newsong [23:22] Sound absurd to me. [23:22] neuro well think about it [23:22] Back again.... just chatting with my mother about spanking :) [23:23] neuro they assume uniformity [23:23] Maybe I just have a better imagination...I can imagine universes without gods. [23:23] neuro they can never prove uniformity in nature, theyhave no basis to do so without a God [23:23] It is not proven, it is an unproven axiom. [23:23] Neuro so Can I, but God is not believed in because he is imagined [23:24] neruo whcih is the point, there is no rational for the axiom [23:24] Action: asha requests definition for axion [23:24] axiom even [23:24] God is no more rational. One reference more. [23:24] nuero, there is no reason to think that science corresponds to reality at that point [23:24] Nuero God is the basis for rationality [23:24] asha a starting point, a basic belief [23:24] BSD (user01@pool043.Max2.San-Diego.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) joined #apologetics. [23:24] thanks Acolyte [23:25] axoim is a basic belief accepted as true...self-evident, maybe [23:25] Nuero, secondly, in an atheistic universe matter and motion would know nothing at all [23:25] neruo, not all axioms are self evident [23:25] Hello room [23:25] neuro: example, leaves are green? [23:25] asha no [23:25] No, some are more than others ;) [23:25] hello bds [23:25] asha, more like A cannot be ~A in the same place, time and sence [23:26] Well...I guess it's an axoim in science that reality exists...thus we can observe it. [23:26] gotcha, thanks :) [23:26] neuro circular argument [23:26] neuro how do you know science is true? [23:26] We cannot do science unless we believe there is a common reality for all of us to observe. [23:26] nuero without an epistemology tho, observation is nothing [23:26] neuro why believe there is a common reality? [23:26] But then, Quantum Mechanics sort of stirs things [23:26] how are you BDS? [23:26] Acolyte: all my perceptions tell me this...... [23:26] BSD? [23:26] nuero without god there is no Logic, no science, no ethics, nothing, NIHILISM [23:27] If there is no reality we have nothing in common [23:27] asha your perceptions tell u what? [23:27] GReat. Whats the topic? [23:27] Acolyte: if there is no god, then what is all of this? [23:27] Neuro, perhaps, perhao snot [23:27] asha matter in motion [23:27] Acolyte: my perceptions tell me that there is a common reality [23:27] as usual...God...BSD [23:27] If my constant of gravity is different from yours we can hardly meet...I would be floating, you sinking ;) [23:27] asha, are your perceptions ALWAS right? [23:27] Acolyte: we still have everything that we have now if there is no god [23:27] Acolyte is on a roll...BSD [23:27] asha we do? [23:28] asha what is logic without God? [23:28] Acolyte: unless I am under perception altering influences, yes [23:28] asha what is Logic? [23:28] Acolyte: logic [23:28] ahsa how do you know u do not always percieve amiss? [23:28] asha what is logic? [23:28] logic without God...is the ability to rationalize my behavior without accountability [23:29] Acolyte is now practicing a form of apologetics that is quite absurd to me, hard to understand. [23:29] newsong no logic nwithout god is chemciasl in my head determined by natural law [23:29] neuro, it is basic epistemology [23:29] hmmm...Acolyte...just tongue-in-cheek [23:29] neuro itis called the Transendetal argument [23:29] Maybe basic...but absurd to me nevertheless. [23:29] asha where does logic come from? [23:29] Acolyte: how do you know that you do not always percieve amiss [23:29] Acol.....monkey see....monkey doo [23:29] Acolyte: how do you know that God exists? [23:30] Acolyte: Where does God come from? [23:30] nuero, well if there is no god, there is no unifying principle for anything and everyting, hence no COMMON REALITY can be KNOWN [23:30] We can know it as well as we caN KNOW ANYTHIMG [23:30] But then, I shave my world with Occam's Razor every morning. [23:30] Asha eternal non-contingent things do not come frm anywhere, they simply are [23:30] NUero please note Occam was a Theist [23:30] Well, that is your take on the subject. [23:30] Acolyte: how do you know that God exists? [23:31] God does not come from man.... [23:31] Asha I know God exists by many ays [23:31] asha I know God exists by many ways [23:31] Acolyte: How do you KNOW that you are not delusional? [23:31] asha, one of which I am showing u know [23:31] God from man is the "way of Cain".... [23:31] Acolyte: how do you kNOW that you even exist [23:31] asha by many ways [23:31] But that has no relevance with his razor. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. [23:31] asha by many ways [23:31] Nuero it has everything to do with his razor, and even Occam said, sometimes his razor was wrong [23:31] How do You know France exits? [23:31] asha, knowldge is not always certian, but at some point it has kto be. [23:32] Well, postulating God is unnecessary multiplication for me. [23:32] asha, i seriously suggest that you visit our web page for evidence and reasons for the existence of God [23:32] I don't think Alexander the Great ever existed... [23:32] Neuro subtracting god makes everything meainngless [23:32] Acolyte: do you have eyeballs? [23:32] asha do I/ [23:32] Acolyte: do they work? [23:32] ? [23:32] I don't subtract anything, I just don't know. [23:32] asha perhaps I am blind [23:32] When I don't know...well...then I don't know. [23:33] asha the act of perception does not gaurantee the accuracy o that act of perception [23:33] All I know is that I don't know nothing [23:33] And currently I don't really know which gods, if any, exist. [23:33] asha you know that you don't know, which is something [23:33] Acolyte: your brain perceives/believes that God exists.... what makes it accurate? [23:33] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:33] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:33] Now, I could start believing in a god or three...but I see no reason to do it. [23:34] Neuro: only three? [23:34] asha reason and evidence [23:34] Acolyte: same here, that's why I trust my eyes :) [23:34] Neuro why not visit our web page? [23:34] neuro, do you know wha the cosmological argument is? [23:34] Well, acolyte thinks he knows that god exists...I think he believes god exists and rationalizes his faith. [23:34] Neuro I think you know god exists and rationalize your unbelief [23:34] And I think I don't know if gods exist or not. [23:34] Are you saying I'm lying? [23:35] So, Acolyte, you're saying that God exists because of reason and evidence? [23:35] nuero all know that god exists [23:35] All know? I see. [23:35] um..... err.... I didn't fill out that form [23:35] asha no, I am saying that belief in God is the basis of reason and I have evidence as well for that belief? [23:35] neuro All know, but they supress the truth [23:35] It's wonderful how you can see my thoughts that deeply.. [23:35] newsong (newsong@perham-39.dialup.eot.com) left #apologetics. [23:35] nuero, No god does that [23:35] I am saying, that my eyeballs work, and that I have plenty-o-evidence to support that belief [23:35] asha circular argument [23:35] common reality could be defined just by sight could it not? [23:36] asha do u know what a circular argument is? [23:36] OK...this is the good old "everyone who disagrees with me is in denial" arguemnt. [23:36] a dog chasing its tail [23:36] neuro no itis not [23:36] asha something like that, it is using the premise as the conclusion [23:36] asha, if you use your eyes to verify the veractiy of your eyes then it is circular [23:36] So how come you keep using the fact that God exists for all of you arguments [23:36] asha, well I have only made one argument so far [23:37] That's his axiom. [23:37] asha, would u like to see another? [23:37] Right, that God exists, and that's your basis [23:37] He claims it is "proven" but it really is his axiom. [23:37] asha no, if I deny that god exists, logic, science, ethics etc go out the window [23:37] neuro the impossibility of the opposite verifies the claim [23:37] I see no such impossibility. [23:37] asha, would u like to see another? [23:37] neuro u admitted it earlier [23:37] Your "chemical" arguemnts have been very unimpressive so far. [23:38] If god doesn't exist, he never has, and we STILL have logix, science, ethics etc [23:38] No, I agree I can see al human behaviour obeying natural laws. [23:38] neruo, you have not found a way out yet,m so I think they worked wuite well [23:38] asha what is logic then? [23:38] I can't find a way our because you will not chnage your mind no matter what I say. is that correct? [23:38] neuro and if all human thoughts, actions are determined by natural law, how would every know if any of them was false? [23:39] neuro if you give a logical argument I will [23:39] False in what sense? [23:39] It can easily be false in a local societal sense. [23:39] neuro how would you verify it since any conclusin or attempt at verification would be determined as well? [23:39] Remember, we started with ethics. [23:39] And ethics are truly relative to a degree. [23:39] neuro the outcome maybe determined and it may be determined to a false conclusion, but u could never be able to tell which is which because it is all determined [23:39] neuro I deny that ethics are relative [23:39] Well, that is your axiom, then. [23:39] neuro not only that, I asert that your system has no ethics, only utility [23:40] Acolyte: so your argument is "God controls everything, therefore God exists?" [23:40] asha NO [23:40] If we have different axoims isn't it a bit improbable we can "win" any debate? [23:40] asha my first arguemtn is this, if I deny god, what can I RATIONALLY believe in? the answer, NOTHING. [23:40] indeed. [23:41] nueor unbless u can show 1 thing [23:41] nuero that the axioms are irrational [23:41] So God is rationality? [23:41] neuro if you work the axioms out to show irrational things, like the denial of Logic, then the axiom is false [23:41] asha close [23:41] asha god is the basis for truth and Logic [23:41] Asha God is Truth [23:41] Well, you haven't really showed any irrational things about physical systems, either. [23:41] Truth is God? [23:42] asha truth is eternal [23:42] Truth is God? [23:42] Asha Jesus said himself, I am the way the TRUTH and the Life and No one comes to the Father except by me [23:42] asha truth is God [23:42] BSD (user01@pool043.Max2.San-Diego.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) left irc: Read error to BSD[pool043.Max2.San-Diego.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET]: EOF from client [23:42] Logic is god [23:42] Love is God [23:42] Perfection is God [23:42] Then truth is truth, and God is God.... back to square one [23:42] Basically, this really is apologetics...with a cloak of rationality. [23:42] asha truth is based in the essence of God [23:43] neuro do you know what the term apologetics means? [23:43] Do I exist? [23:43] asha perhaps I can show u something else [23:43] asha do u? [23:43] asha lets try somethgn else [23:43] Can you read what I type? [23:43] can I? [23:43] apol7o7get7ics \-iks\ n pl but sing or pl in constr [23:43] (1733) [23:43] 1: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) [23:43] 2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity [23:44] I think Acolyte is doing number 2 [23:44] neuro yes thatis true [23:44] it is both [23:44] So, Acolyte: I can not win in an argument with you [23:44] asha, now, think about yourself for a minite [23:44] asha it is not likely, I have beendoing philoso[phy for almost 11 yrs [23:44] that doesn't make you right [23:44] asha no it makes me more prepared tho [23:45] asha hy not check out our web page? [23:45] preparedness has nothing to do with it, your arguments require that I am wrong, and leave no room for further debate [23:45] Besides, many philosophers disagree with him...thus it's yet another debate all over again. [23:45] asha they logically requir that u are wrong, this is true [23:45] neuro, yes they do, and yet theyhave no basis for it, which is the point [23:45] newsong (newsong@perham-39.dialup.eot.com) joined #apologetics. [23:45] re new [23:45] yo acol [23:46] There he goes again...he is always right, everyone else is always wrong. Hard to beat that. [23:46] neuro, if I am wrong, show me [23:46] prove it [23:46] sounds liek sour grapes to me neuro [23:46] Acolyte: we can't, by YOUR logic [23:46] Now, I might try to find all the axioms and see what I can do... [23:47] ahsa my logic? I don't OWN logic [23:47] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [23:47] But since you are good at word games it would probably be futile. [23:47] YOUR god owns YOUR logic [23:47] neuro still determinism defeats your hole system [23:47] asha No God IS Logic [23:47] But hey...I know I'm right so I can just let him be. [23:47] Indeed, no god is logical :) [23:47] ;) [23:48] asha can you prove it? [23:48] prove what? [23:48] I was making a joke [23:48] asha what u claimed? [23:48] nevermind [23:48] asha thats what i thought [23:48] newsong same song different day [23:48] All this is very entertaining, tho [23:48] sounds like it...Acol... [23:48] neuro: indeed, but can get frustrating too [23:48] news same BS [23:48] neuro: I guess it depends on how you take it all [23:49] around...and around......hehehehehe [23:49] the heart of man trying to justify his rebellion against God.. [23:49] I've stopped taking IRC too seriously. [23:49] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:49] asha check out our web page [23:49] Now, all these stuff is certainly deeper than most IRC junk [23:49] Neuro: how many kids do you have? [23:49] kids...do you keep goats...Neuro [23:49] No kids yet. [23:49] Mode change '+o newsong ' by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com [23:50] gotta go do some work [23:50] Goats? Nah, I'm not into beastiality...I just have a wife. [23:50] newsong c-ya [23:50] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: LeavingOriginal file name:log_5_12_96.txt [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_12_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank