[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/14/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/14/96 [04:09] Aco

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 - 3/14/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/14/96 [04:09] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [04:09] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:09] Wakko_ (Conclave@s13-pm07.usc.campus.mci.net) joined #apologetics. [04:09] ok [04:09] !op [04:09] :) [04:09] it was worth a try... [04:09] via u wish [04:10] I have no idea. Evolution might provide an answer, in that a species that enjoyed killing eachother may have some hard times in the future. [04:10] Via, I believe that we have the ability to identify with the pain and suffering inflicted on others and that in itself is a minor deterent to evil [04:10] Acolyte: :P [04:11] wakko if you want the best book on the topic you should get Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology and MArtin Chemnitz, The Two Natures of Christ [04:11] Well I tell you this.. I enjoy doing some mean things to people but refrain cause It might hurt them... why? [04:11] via nature disposes youto [04:11] Could it be because you can imagine what pain they might suffer! [04:12] no... [04:12] it would be fun... I just know it's not right... [04:12] like a pie in the face.. is that harmful? [04:12] no [04:12] but it would be fun.. but evil in a way... [04:12] How would it be evil? [04:12] cause it might hurt the person I inflict [04:12] It depends on the situation [04:13] how would you like it if I pied your face? [04:13] via it all depends ont he value of the consequent and why it is valued [04:13] I might enjoy it, depending on the mood. [04:13] Wakko_ (Conclave@s13-pm07.usc.campus.mci.net) left #apologetics. [04:14] your correct.. but in most of my moods I feel it would be wrong [04:14] via what are emotions? [04:14] I feel the pie hitted wouldn't like it either no matter the time or place [04:14] Acolyte: You tell me [04:14] via it depends on the paradigm one is in, what is your paradigm? [04:15] well first I would look in the dictionary what a paradigm is.. then I would tell you... :P [04:15] or you could tell me and save me the time [04:15] worldview=paradigm [04:15] Acolyte: the world is full of messed up people.. that's my paradigm [04:16] via r u an athiest? Theist? pantheist?what? [04:16] panthiest is what? [04:16] exactly? [04:16] God=nature [04:16] hmmm... agnostic [04:16] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^pantheism [04:16] ic [04:16] U C? [04:17] :P [04:17] you don't know or no one can know? [04:17] I don't know [04:17] ic [04:17] well is man anything more than a material body? [04:17] pantheism is the belief that all things are manifestations of god! [04:17] IYO [04:17] jako God=Nature, saves space [04:18] all things? hmmm.. that's not me [04:18] via is man anything more than a physical body? [04:18] Whats your "paradigm" Acolyte? [04:18] Jako I am a Theist [04:18] jakco specifically I am a Christian Theist [04:19] AH! and telepathic too. You answered my question before I asked it. :) [04:19] wow.. Ill send my 75 cents for that "paradigm" word thingy [04:19] :fi [04:20] :) [04:20] just kidding [04:20] via wellif man is only materila thenemotions are chemical reactions [04:20] if man has no soul then his emotions are bio-chemical reactions, as are his ideas [04:20] well that wouldn't make sense if Im an agnostic.. then I wouldn't believe that there is NO God would I? [04:21] I don't know which... le sigh... [04:21] viamortis do you have reasons for your denial of God's existence? [04:21] :fi [04:21] :P~ [04:21] AGNOSTIC.. NOT ATHIEST [04:21] there is a difference [04:21] :P [04:21] via ok, do you think you cold ever know? [04:22] If I look long enough.. I will find [04:22] right? [04:22] Is it necessary to know? [04:22] perhaps if you look correctly you will find [04:22] jako for somethings yes [04:22] So there is a correct way to look? [04:22] Jako: Of course it is.. it is the future of your afterlife.. nothing? or death or life? [04:22] For god and Christ? [04:22] babysnake I thinks o [04:22] jako yup [04:23] What is this hypothetical correct way? [04:23] wooops [04:23] brb [04:23] hmmm... now that was just strange [04:23] Okay I have another question.. assuming God is Good.. how do we know that he will not change? [04:24] not that one [04:24] hmmm [04:24] @tim 4 13 [04:24] dang it [04:24] where is it [04:24] AColyte: did you hear my question? [04:24] yes [04:24] be there in a second [04:24] what cha think? [04:24] What are you looking for? [04:24] he's a christian.. he's FOUND it all :P [04:25] just kidding [04:25] If I live a rightious (not sinless) life and I spend a great deal of my time helping others but do not accept the existance of the Christian God, what will become of myu soul? [04:25] jako depends [04:25] not that one [04:25] on what [04:25] dang it I usually know that one by heart [04:25] Jako: I can answer that one [04:25] if you would permit [04:25] jako christians disagree on that issue [04:25] go for it [04:25] jako, some thing you'd be toast [04:26] jako others depends on whaere you were, if you in a place that youcould not hear the gospel or not [04:26] well according to Christian view... If God is indeed perfect then he can't dwell with our imperfect selves [04:26] If we had ONE ounce of imperfection how could he dwell? [04:26] Via your question abut God [04:26] What if I was raised a christian! [04:26] thats simple [04:26] I don't know... [04:26] jako toast [04:27] God does not change because his nature determines what he will do, his nature is immutable [04:27] Jako: So the only way to cover ALL the sins or imperfections that one has.. they would have to accept Christ [04:27] via no [04:27] That is the main reason I cannot call myself a Christian [04:27] via to have christ accept you [04:27] jako why? [04:27] Acolyte: If he "asks ya" you have to accept him [04:27] Acolyte: If he "asks ya" you have to accept him [04:28] Jako: what do you mean? [04:28] there it is [04:28] Acolyte: If he "asks ya" you have to accept him [04:28] Jako: what do you mean? [04:28] via perhaps [04:28] So what exactly is rational theism? [04:28] Ac. I believe that we will be judged by what is truly in our hearts. Any judgement will be independant of out spiritual beliefs. [04:28] perhaps? or right? [04:28] how does one tell? [04:29] jako so weather you love God does not matter? [04:29] via see jn 6 44 [04:29] Jako so you could hate God and still go to heaven? [04:29] Yes [04:30] yes? [04:30] Jako so you could hate God and still go to heaven? [04:30] Jako how does one merit God's favor? [04:30] Unless god has an attitude [04:30] Jako: So imperfection CAN dwell with perfection? [04:30] jako, what would the presence of God be like for those that hate him? [04:30] God CAN look upon evil and not care? [04:30] via good question [04:30] How do you know? [04:30] Why should we try to merit gods favor! [04:31] via he cares [04:31] Why should he? [04:31] jako, I am asking you, you seemto think that God owes you eternal life [04:31] Acolyte: I know that if a God took the time to create us that he would be a different God then "impersonal" [04:31] via very true [04:32] So Jako: can a perfect God dwell with imperfection? [04:32] I believe that eternal life is something that should be earned by someones actions and by their true heart, not by their spiritual belief! [04:32] jako how do you earn God's Favor? [04:32] How can one EVER hope to win salvation? [04:32] jako how much good is enough? [04:32] have you seen how evil a "rightous" man can be? [04:33] How then can a Unrightous man gain eternal life? [04:33] what If society made it impossible to do good? [04:33] Via, I have seen how evil a Christian can be! [04:33] then he's stuck in a hole [04:33] jako ok, so how do you plan to earn God's favor? [04:33] Acolyte: assuming that we don't believe in the bible... how can you quote it? [04:33] Acolyte: assuming that we don't believe in the bible... how can you quote it? [04:33] via I do [04:34] via its truth does not depend on your assent to it [04:34] That's my point.. I don't.. how can you win me over with something i don't belive? [04:34] Oh, I think it does aco. [04:34] via other ways [04:34] via by showing alternatives to be faulty [04:34] thats one way [04:34] Acolyte.. my point is... with scripture you won't win anyone over unless they believe in the scripture [04:35] Ac. As I said, I plan to live my life as morally and just as I can manage and will leave the judgement up to God when the time comes, whatever "god" is! [04:35] or else then they will ignore it [04:35] via perhaps, Ic an show how it comports mwith experience tho [04:35] Jako: How do you know that's good enough? [04:35] jako how do you know what is moral? [04:35] xenno (balo@ix-okc-ok1-21.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [04:35] Via! I don't [04:35] hmm [04:35] xenno (balo@ix-okc-ok1-21.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [04:35] jako how do you know what is moral? [04:36] Jako: then what is the use trying if you don't know what is good enough? how do you know that two "sins" isn't bad enough to send you to hell and that you never have a way to ignore those sin s? [04:36] or mistakes? [04:36] Ac. Moralality, to me, is what I believe to be just, For me it is to treat others as I would want to be treated [04:37] jako, so what you like makes a thing moral? [04:37] then it's already to late and your on your way [04:37] jako so what if I like to kill jews? [04:37] Yes, what I like is my morality. [04:37] jako thatis abitrary [04:37] do unto others is jako's philosophy [04:37] not what is fun [04:37] via, that all depends onw hat he/she likes tho [04:37] Then in your morality Acolyte, you would be correct. You should be prepared to be judged by others however. [04:38] Acolyte" pardon? [04:38] baby why? [04:38] baby: pardon [04:38] baby why should my actins incurr judgement if there is not any standrd to make a judgement by? [04:38] anyone going to clear up their own opinions? [04:38] why what? If you like to kill jews, then it must be morally acceptable to you. [04:38] or just continue to be amgigious? [04:38] ambiguious [04:39] hmm.. how does one spell that word? [04:39] The standard of judgement is your fellow man. [04:39] babysnake that is a descriptive staement only tho [04:40] jako I don't think you have really delt with the problem of individual ethical systems [04:40] Do you deny that you will be judged by others? In fact, what is not a descriptive statement? [04:40] babysnake why? [04:40] why what? [04:40] baysnake Prescriptive statements are not descriptive stattments [04:41] baby why should others judge me? and how can they if there is nothing to judge BY? [04:41] And the problem with a descriptive statement is? [04:41] Are we all okay on the concept that there MIGHT be a God? [04:41] or not? [04:41] The can judge you by their own moral code, and the code aggreed to by common consensus. [04:41] babysnake it does not prescibe, ethics deals with whatI OUGHT to to, not describing what I do [04:41] How you got killing jews out of my statement baffels me! I did not say treat others as I please. I said treat others as I would like to be treated myself. [04:42] dad44 (stahley@ppp0.enter.net) joined #Apologetics. [04:42] babysnake but how do you know there is morality at all? [04:42] dad44 (stahley@ppp0.enter.net) left #Apologetics. [04:42] Jako, do all ppl like to be treated the same way? No also, why should i value how I like to be treated? [04:42] Jako: I already said that for your benifit already [04:42] :fi [04:42] scroll up [04:43] I am not claiming there is. I am claiming that we all have our own ehtical code for ourselves, and then there are guidelines agrred upon by common consenus. [04:43] babysnake but if therea re no ethics then we cannot have an ethcial code, now can we? [04:44] Babysnake Consensus gentium, just because we agree does not make it true or right ethically or factually [04:44] Ac. So morality, outside of the religious setting, is non existant [04:44] babysnake informal fallacy [04:44] Jako: that is true [04:44] jako yes [04:44] since "all ie relative" [04:44] jako ppl are not consistent [04:44] I am afraid it does make it true. There is no other standard to use. [04:44] Ac, either is religion [04:45] Babysnake why not God's standard? [04:45] Jako how do you know that? [04:45] Ac. look at the different interpretation of the bible! [04:45] Because God's standard is up to interpetation, hence, if we agree what god's standard is then it would be true. It is still by consensus. [04:45] jako: different? like what? [04:46] jako how does hppl interpreting what God does and says make what God does and says inconssitent? [04:46] Jako: One can misinterpret shakespear but is the wrong way the way that is correct? [04:46] Babysnake is there anything that is not debatable? No [04:46] yes there is Acolyte [04:46] :P [04:46] Ac. I didn's say that Gos was inconsistant, I said that religion was inconsistant [04:46] joke [04:46] Jako: One can misinterpret shakespear but is the wrong way the way that is correct? [04:47] someone going to listen? [04:47] No there is not, and that is my point acolyte, thanks. [04:47] jako many ppl in religious bodie are, so? [04:47] babysnake so lack of debate does not make an issue correct, nor does the existence of debate make a position false [04:48] Acolyte: your correct.. I like that... [04:48] What other standard do you propse acolyte? [04:48] babysnake sso debate is irrelevant to the truth of theproposition [04:48] So what about someone who follow a code of ethics that is indipendant of religion. [04:48] babysnake God's Law [04:48] people error.. therefore there are mistakes [04:48] correct? [04:48] Which one? [04:48] jako is there one? [04:48] babysnake Xian [04:48] Define please [04:48] babysnake I think there is more evidence for it and reason than all others [04:49] Christian Go [04:49] God [04:49] I see, so a hindu would be just plain wrong then? [04:49] hmmm... [04:49] Via: People - interpretation - Religion - Bible - God Therefor there are mistakes! [04:49] babysnake not wrong on everything, but on many things yes [04:49] By whose standard? [04:50] babysnake the Christian Standard, the Scriptures [04:50] Jako: that would be true... but if God DID have a hand in those creations then there would be no mistake in the bible.. then you have to decide what a mistake IS [04:50] Yours becasue you believe something different? [04:50] So the hindu cannot form an ethical code from his religous texts, while you can from yours? [04:50] Babysnake not because I think differently but because it has support of reason and evidence. there's does not [04:50] Via. There are many interpretations of the bible. Surely one of them has mistakes! [04:50] babys sure he can, but is it consistent? Logical? No [04:51] What evidence does the christian bible enjoy, that the hindu faith does not? [04:51] Jako: person iterpretations of the bible? or language? [04:51] babysnakewas Vishnu a real person? No was jesus? Yes [04:51] Is god a real person? [04:51] Via: Probably both! [04:51] baby I think so, but I know what God is like because of Christ [04:52] So if your god could be a "person", why could not vishnu? [04:52] Jako: well I must admit that personal interpretations are bad.. but language... that is something else [04:52] babysnake never said it could not, justthatit is inconsistent and not supported by evidence [04:53] What evidnece is there that god was/is/ever a person other than someone is claiming so right now? [04:53] babysnake if you have better evidence for A then B, would itnot be rational to choose belief in A over B? [04:53] Ac. I have a difficult time accepting a religion that condems the soul of a man who tried to life a good life yet saves the soul of a man that commits horrible crimes as long as he accept Christ and repents on his death bed! [04:53] How are you sure that it is? If God is indeed helping us out.. would he allow our text to lie to us? [04:53] Babysnake History [04:54] If you had any evidence at all, that argument might be valid. [04:54] Jako thats right, God's mercy is unconditinal. [04:54] Jako: I would agree but that arguement sounds wrong [04:54] Babysnake an dyou know that I do not? [04:54] My main questions is this: The point of the bible is faith, yet you seem to have all of this evidence to support your claim. It no longer sounds like faith to me. [04:54] Via: What sounds wrong! [04:54] Jako God's mercy cannot be barrted for by works [04:55] If you have it, spill it boy! [04:55] define faith [04:55] babsysnake define faith [04:55] Jako: IF god gave us a "way" to save our lives.. then how is that wrong? he told us that "he was the only way the only truth and the only life" if he gave us a means of excape then it seems that he is just.. or that he at least cares [04:56] Faith is the belief in something when there is no eveidence. If you had no evidence it would not matter, because you have faith. I do not have a dictionary, so I cannot give you a good one. [04:56] that is if you accept the Christian view [04:56] Babysnake well thatis not a Christian defintion of Faith [04:56] I shoould say, wothout need for eveidence. [04:56] Give me your definition of faith then acolyte [04:56] babysnake you will not find A SINGLE christian theologian that takes that view [04:56] Faith has 3 componants [04:57] 1. Knowledge [04:57] 2. Assent [04:57] 3. Trust [04:57] Knowledge of what? [04:57] 1. I know X by evidence and reason [04:57] 2. I assent that X is true [04:57] Via: If he is truly omnepotent(sp.) why would he not judge us truly by what we accomplised, tried to accomplish and by the good that we do. [04:57] 3. I Trust Christ based on 1 & 2 [04:58] Babysnake God and his works [04:58] Jako: how does that play into omnipotents? [04:58] Jako if god was to judge you by your works, would one infractionof his law make you a lawbreaker? [04:59] Ac. That would be for god to determine [04:59] all have sinned and are worthy of death.. according to that scripture all are in trouble.. unless God did something to stop that punishment from happening [05:00] jako ok, how do you know that there is a God at all? [05:00] jako: but you said if he was omipotent then he would judge according to our actions [05:00] how does that play into his omnipotents? [05:00] I don't see the conection [05:01] Ac. You may laugh but the truth is I was dead for 3 minutes in 1969. I know that there is a god! [05:01] Babysnake (storm@cisco-ts17-line2.uoregon.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Babysnake[cisco-ts17-line2.uoregon.edu] [05:01] MrBell (Micah@ppp108.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [05:01] Jako: how is it that about 1 out of 50 (or something like that) say that they DID indeed feel something otherwise than "nothing"? [05:02] when they died? [05:02] (they also claim that most blocked the experience from mind cause of the painfulness of the experience.. aka: hell?) [05:02] jako so based on yourpost mortum experience I am supposed to trust what you say>? [05:02] Via. I was just saying that an omnipotent god would have the ability to judge on wider criteria than the vane conception that we believe in him. [05:03] Jako perhaps God chose not to judge on a wider criteria [05:03] jako and perhaps he told us so [05:03] he made it simple [05:03] jako: that is your vain concept of what a omnipotent god would do... don't you think? [05:03] 1 way [05:03] how do you know that God wouldn't do what the christian god would? [05:03] jako did jesus lie? [05:03] jako: that is your vain concept of what a omnipotent god would do... don't you think? [05:03] jako did jesus make an error there? [05:04] answer mine first... [05:04] Wow, I got about a hundred questions. [05:04] :fi [05:04] answer mine first... [05:04] :) [05:04] I will answer as quick as possible [05:04] haven2 (haven2@ joined #Apologetics. [05:05] :fi [05:05] hullo haven [05:05] hi [05:05] hulloooooooo haven [05:05] :P [05:05] First: about the near death experience. I am not claiming that this experience gives me a better knowlege of what the "truth" is just that it has confirmed my beliefe that life does not end at phy sical death! [05:06] sounds like i interupted [05:06] jako Jesus was dead for days, don't u think he wold know betetr than you? [05:06] sorry [05:06] haven no problem [05:06] haven go ahead [05:06] haven2 no problems [05:06] Ac. Providing you believe that Jesus was resurected! [05:07] Hi haven2 [05:07] jako oh wellperhaps you can explain what occured then ifhe was not? [05:07] well then what happened to the body if he wasn't resurected? [05:07] shema (lewis7@aus-tx6-15.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [05:07] hullo shema [05:07] Ac. No I cannot, I wasn't there. [05:07] shema (lewis7@aus-tx6-15.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [05:08] jako was president Lincoln shot? [05:08] jako did cesar cross the Rubicon? [05:08] jako did the Gospel writers lie? [05:08] Yes many different sources of historical facts say so! [05:09] licoln that is [05:09] ok, so why is it that you trust those sources bu tnot the Gospel writers? [05:09] bye everyone gonna surf while tides still in:] [05:09] later haven [05:09] bye Haven [05:10] libyebye [05:10] haven2 (haven2@ left #Apologetics. [05:10] I dont know of any history writers who wrote about parting seas' etc. [05:10] jako ok but I am not tlaking about that [05:10] jako: is it miracles that keep you from scripture? [05:10] jako why is it htat you trust those sources but not the Gospel writers? [05:11] I do not trust all sources I read. I have to make judgement calls as I go [05:12] Jako: have you ever done a unbias study of the Christian faith? It's really interesting... [05:12] jako ok, why do you judge the Gospel writers to be deficient? [05:12] To read something and believe it to be truth without scrutiny can be very dangerous! [05:12] Jako: have you ever done a unbias study of the Christian faith? It's really interesting... [05:12] jako I am not saying that, what are your reasons for rejecting the Gospel writers? [05:13] jako ok, why do you judge the Gospel writers to be deficient? [05:14] jako ok, why do you judge the Gospel writers to be deficient? [05:14] acolyte: maybe if you say it again... :) [05:14] acolyte: maybe if you say it again... :) [05:14] :P [05:14] Via: I dont necessarily reject the gosple writers. I do believe that The gosple is one source of information (possibly corrupted) from which one can read / live by [05:15] possibly corrupted? or IS corrupted? [05:15] Sorry about the slow responses. I use a special keyboard and I have trouble keeping up! [05:15] jako the gospels have the best textual transmission out of any ancient historical document [05:15] jako: all I said was this [05:15] thats fine [05:15] Jako: have you ever done a unbias study of the Christian faith? It's really interesting... [05:15] that's what I said... [05:16] via I saw [05:16] :P [05:16] thanks [05:16] :P` [05:16] :P`~ [05:16] I believe possible corrupt. I have drawn no specific conclusion when it comes to spirituality. [05:16] Via: I am trying to do that as we speak! [05:17] :P [05:17] jako but yet you trust othger sources which are less reliable historically but not the Gospels whicha re themost reliable historically. that does not make much sense [05:17] hokay.. lets take it from here... [05:17] that's true... [05:18] Why are the gosples more reliable! [05:18] like the Galic wars of Julius Ceaser [05:18] historically, that is. [05:18] only a couple of documents were found BUT we take it ALL as a fact [05:18] jako, 1, transmission [05:18] 2. external confirmation [05:18] 3. Internal evidence [05:19] the Gospels have more than any other ancient document by far [05:19] the only document that comes even close is Homer's Illiad and the odessy, which is not very close [05:19] jako, I suggest F.F. Bruce, The NT Documents: Are they Reliable? [05:19] he's an Oxford Textual Critic [05:19] but how many times has it been rewritten and translated, let alon interpreted [05:20] jako interpretation does not change the text [05:20] jako think of it this way [05:20] you have 3 copies o anote from your mom [05:20] each one has a mess up [05:20] so the firts one goes liek this [05:21] 1. Go to the $tore and buy some milk. [05:21] 2. *o to the store and buy some milk. [05:21] 3. Go to the store and &uy some milk. [05:21] not to hard to figure out what the original said now is it? [05:22] well if you candy coat it... [05:22] you RE-construct the original scientifically [05:22] or how about this 1: bad arguement [05:22] 2: bud arguement [05:22] 3: bod arguement [05:22] not hard to figure out is it... :) [05:22] jako we have 99.8-9% of the NT reconstructed. better than anything in the WORLD [05:23] EVER [05:23] hey.. just a joke... [05:23] nothing even comes close [05:23] Through several transgressions the corruption could get deeper that that [05:23] jako could, but didn't [05:23] jako do you know how many ancient copies of the NT there are? [05:24] over 25,000 [05:24] too many to hide corruption [05:24] How ancient! [05:24] wow.. that's muchos gracios [05:24] if someone deliberately wanted to change te text, it would be practically impossible [05:24] jako the earliest text we have is about 90-115 AD [05:25] the latest is about 900-1,000 ad or so [05:25] you mean OLD testament [05:25] No I mean NT [05:25] or NEW testament? [05:25] the John Rylands text [05:26] its dated about 90-115 ad [05:26] jako the NT is not unreliable historically [05:27] the point is simple, if you accept less reliable sources then why not the NT since it is by FAR much more reliable? [05:27] true that... [05:27] jako the evidence is there [05:27] the reasons are clear [05:27] its just that simple [05:27] jako think about it [05:28] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_14_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