[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/2/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/2/96 [23:49] Zen

---
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 - 4/2/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/2/96 [23:49] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [23:49] Kiwitu (melmes@ppp232.ihug.co.nz) joined #Apologetics. [23:49] hiya [23:50] Gidday ZenRookie [23:50] May I ask, what is the subject of the channel? [23:50] are you an apologist? [23:50] DG (earth.exe@andromeda.execpc.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:50] Don't know [23:50] oh. hehe, well, an apologist is one who rationally defends religion. [23:51] so this channel is for people who rationally defend religion [23:51] mostly christianity [23:51] Ah. OK thanks..Interested. [23:51] are you religious? i am not. [23:52] No. Neither am I [23:52] ah. [23:52] i was just waiting for someone to come in so I could ask a few questions, and see if they could "rationally" answer them. [23:52] So what are you doing here ? [23:53] Sorry Zen...Not gonna be any help. [23:53] i figured :) [23:53] i usually hang out in #atheism a quite irreverent channel, if you are interested. [23:53] Cesium (dos.efx@lgn.com) joined #apologetics. [23:53] hello [23:54] hey cesium [23:54] hello. [23:54] what can I rationally answer? (or try to,...) [23:54] I am from New Zealand. The latest issue of Time magazine carries a particularly interesting cover story about AI [23:55] cassidy: ok, wherein lies the sacrifice of death (dying for our sins) if jesus knew he would rise from the dead? [23:55] it's one of the questions that bugs me [23:55] Zen...let me see if I am understanding you correctly.... [23:55] I have visited #atheism several times but find a few of the regulars too evangelistic for me. [23:56] are you asking..."how could a sacrafice be valid if the person being sacraficed knows his sacrafice will be only for a limited amount of time? [23:56] so... apolobot captures everything we say, and then the debates which christians win are shone on the web site? [23:56] no, i am asking how i death considered a sacrifice, when he was risen from the dead. [23:57] Kiwi...want atheistic eevangelism? try #AynRand!!!! [23:57] howi = how is [23:57] Zen...why is it efecatious if it wasn't eternal??? is that it? [23:58] don't want any evangelism Cassidy...:) [23:58] well, i guess so, how is one sacrificing ones life, when one is not going to be dead. [23:58] Ces...if that happens...Im not aware of it. Ask Liam3 or Profg. [23:59] i'll look out for them... but it seems to be the most reasonable hypothesis, no? [23:59] Zen...we believe he indeed WAS dead. We believe He (God the Son) could die for a tempory amount of time...and the one for the many...because he, being God, is infinately valuable..therefore his death, although temporary...was in finately valueable. [00:00] Zen. Are you trying to determine the validity or otherwise of spiritualism by semantics? [00:00] Kiwi...nor I. [00:01] hmmmm, cassidy, i understand the explanation, but there just seems to be something wrong with it in my mind. [00:01] OK... [00:03] rational theism? what exactly does this mean? [00:03] DG (earth.exe@andromeda.execpc.com) left #Apologetics. [00:04] Cesium it must essentialy mean the same as rational atheism [00:04] Cesium...same thing its always meant. Theistic belief has always been a notable contender in western philosophy. [00:04] i doubt that... [00:04] what, then, would god be doing, while jesus was dead, if they were one and the same? [00:04] rational theism as opposed to irrational theism? [00:05] well...you only need read a histouy of philosophy to find out... [00:05] i'd rather let you tell me what you think it means [00:06] Cesium. What I meant was if you can use a method ie rationality to prove something, you must also be able to use the same technique to disprove it, otherwise the technique is invalid. [00:06] Zen...we believe that "God" did not die...Christ the man died. He said "Unto thy habnds I commit my spirit":...Christ therefore died physically. [00:06] cesium, there is lots of irrational theism. those who take the bible as 100% literal truth are often irrational. [00:06] Zen...and often not. [00:07] so... rational theism proves the existence of god? or attempts to? this is getting somewhere [00:07] i agree with you, zen. [00:08] christ the human died. but christ the human was also god. but god did not die. apparently, the flesh died, but not the spirit, so to speak, is that what you are saying? [00:08] Ces...is it? I believe you are asking..."does theism have strong arguments for Gods existance"...I say, yes. We have many and many that are compelling. [00:09] i was just wondering about the definition of rational in regards to theism, but asking about your arguments might have been a followup... what are some? [00:09] those who take the bible as 100% literal truth are unfortunately fundamentaly irrational. It was probably never intended to be 100% literal. [00:09] Zen...Christ is a hypostatic union....The God-man. His "parts" are neither mingled or totally seperate....so, yes. Christ, the man died. But God did not. [00:10] hmmm, his parts were not mingled, and not separate? could you explain how that works?> [00:11] Kiwi...you must define 100% literal. I personally allow for natural language, poetic verse, alegory, etc. However...I otherwise accept it as the revealed word of God. [00:11] It was only related by those with the knowledge available to them at the time, as all things have always been. [00:11] HyprParit (John@line031.nwm.mindlink.net) joined #apologetics. [00:12] Zen...perhaps not. Not adaquitely. However, I think your original question can be answered. Is his sacrafice sufficient? Yes. [00:12] cassidy_, how do you decide when to label a verse allegorical? [00:13] hello, hyprparit [00:13] Cesium...if the context suggests as much. Its not terrably difficult. [00:13] is this "hypostatic" union the rational part? [00:14] when the verse seems as if it violates natural law or common sense? [00:14] based upon your understanding at the time. [00:14] cesium, not exactly, Job for instance, is allegorical, yet many people take it as literal. [00:14] IS ANYONE STIRRING? [00:15] i would assume so... aren't there references to sea monsters? [00:15] \ [00:15] Action: HyprParit [00:15] \ [00:15] Action: HyprParit [00:15] stirring? is that an irc term? [00:15] Its not irrational. To conceive of God Taking on flesh is not the most difficult part of Christianity. [00:16] one could argue that "sea monsters" could be anything that is large and unknown and living in the sea, of which i am sure there were many things. [00:16] hey [00:16] but i believe there were specific descriptions... verses? [00:17] Zen...the problem is that Christ spoke of Job as a literal event...he gave no hint of an allegorical understanding anyways.. [00:17] i've heard arguments that the references to sea monsters are sightings of dinosaurs, validating a young earth theory. would you consider that irratioanl? [00:17] Kiwitu (melmes@ppp232.ihug.co.nz) left #Apologetics. [00:17] Zen...right. Sea Monsters are an example of "natural language" in the Bible. [00:18] cassidy: so you think that the story of Job is a telling of actual events, just as they happened? [00:18] HyprParit (John@line031.nwm.mindlink.net) left irc: HyprParit [00:18] I dont hold a young earth theory. [00:18] cesium: they also said that the dragons breathed fire, but as of yet, no one has documented any fire-breathing creatures. [00:18] cassidy, i am genuinely happy for you [00:19] HyprParit (John@line031.nwm.mindlink.net) joined #apologetics. [00:20] hello again, hyprparit [00:20] Zen...the way its written sounds quite a bit like a tale...a play perhaps. It is difficult to see it as a historical doccument. However, the style doesn't itself negate the possibility...plus, as I said, Christ spoke of Job, and his words dont suggest allegory. [00:21] hmm... i'm retriving my bible (nab) [00:21] er retrieving... now i have it [00:21] Cesium...Im happy that your happy for me. Even if I did hold to a young earth...Id be happy that you weren't happy for me... :) [00:21] hey [00:21] cassidy: we often talk of allegorical stories to punctuate our language, while making it sound as if the events actually happened, just one example would be people who refer to Shakespeare. [00:22] Zen agreed. [00:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [00:22] well, i am also happy in general about this... but onto Job :) [00:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #Apologetics. [00:23] what is W? [00:23] many biblcal scholars hold that Job is a wonderful piece of allegorical literature. [00:23] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [00:23] W is Da Man [00:23] among the literary masterpieces of all time, says my catholic nab [00:24] Fermat (knoble@acca.NMSU.Edu) joined #apologetics. [00:24] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip04.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [00:24] cesium, you have the New American? [00:25] hello fermat and pascoe [00:25] hi Cesium. [00:25] hi [00:25] what is the topic? [00:25] Zen...and others do not. They look first to the first verse in Job. Many claim there is no literary indication that the verse meant to introduce him as a fictitious figure...... [00:25] well, it's a rather old version (hmmm 1986). i also have a kjv [00:25] Job [00:26] cassidy: the fact that others do not, to me, is quite interesting. here we have two sets of learned scholars, each saying something quite opposite from the other. Who are we to believe? [00:26] ah... notice the repeated use of the number 7. [00:26] lucky 7 [00:27] allegorical signs of Yahweh's blessings? [00:27] Zen...the ones that give the more compelling argument. [00:27] hehe yes [00:27] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [00:28] the numbers 3, 12, 40 and 1260 also show up quite a bit :) [00:29] that they do... seven sons though. i imagine this was considered the most significant. it is listed first. [00:29] Zen...al Im saying is that, for this particular verse...many believe that it is clearly an introduction to a real person... [00:29] in fact, the number 1260 appears 7 times. spooky [00:29] HyprParit (John@line031.nwm.mindlink.net) left #apologetics. [00:30] suruly you don't doubt everything that is questioned be another...heck, if that were the case, you must then doubt you're own existance, because of those in the past that have doubted theirs. [00:31] cassidy: well, one does have to look at likelyhood also. [00:31] it is very likely that i exist :) [00:31] Zen...I couldn't agree more. [00:32] Zen...I believe that...in fact, I believe it is absolutey necessary that I exist. [00:32] Action: ZenRookie will be back in a minute or two... [00:32] ok... [00:32] :) [00:32] Bawn...you still with me? [00:33] Thanx for the email...it was comforting. [00:33] yuppa [00:33] it was kinda long winded..sorry [00:33] Fermat (knoble@acca.NMSU.Edu) left irc: Read error to Fermat[acca.NMSU.Edu]: Connection reset by peer [00:33] who fermat [00:33] oops [00:33] just checking everyone out :) [00:33] wrong channel, ces :) [00:33] hootchie cootchie [00:33] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip04.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip04.csrv.uidaho.edu] [00:34] ah, he left [00:34] Action: ZenRookie is back... [00:34] who [00:34] re zen [00:34] how can see everyone who is online? [00:35] er on the undernet [00:35] not sure you wanna do that [00:35] there are like 9000 ppl on rightn now [00:35] cesium, type /who *e* will get you close enough :) [00:35] everyone? you wouldn't want to! believe me! its thousands!!! [00:35] i figured it would be smaller than the others... not se? [00:35] so [00:35] no dal net is smaller [00:36] ah... thanks for the warning [00:36] but it still has like 2 thousand [00:36] dalnet is the IRC child right now............. [00:36] well, there is qnet, which has usually 20 people on it. :) [00:36] well... hours and hours of chemistry is calling me. have fun [00:36] nethawk (bacharms@ash-cs-6.win.bright.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:36] exit [00:36] Cesium (dos.efx@lgn.com) left irc: Cesium [00:36] fun fun cesiam [00:36] hi nethawk [00:37] Topic changed by Cassidy_!cassidy7@irv-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com: God Thinks...therefore I am -Berkeley [00:37] hi bawn [00:37] whatcha talkin about tonite? [00:37] did jesus die on the first day of passover (the first full day) or the day before>? [00:38] Bawn sounds like Fawn...invokes images of furry animals.... [00:38] :) [00:38] for some reason the name Fawn invoces paper shredders in my mind [00:39] lol [00:39] fawn invokes, in me, that annoying piece of music we had to listen to in music appreciation, afternoon of a faun or something like that [00:39] hehehehehehe [00:41] Zen...Im back.... [00:41] Bawn is charasmatic and people flock to her................ [00:41] Double-M (mott@ts1-207.monticello.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:41] Double-M (mott@ts1-207.monticello.net) left #Apologetics. [00:41] hmmm alum is often used as a flocking agent at water treatment facilities [00:42] sorry I have been studying recently :P [00:42] bawn... very interesting...thank you for sharing that with us... [00:42] W (cservice@undernet.org) left irc: let's see it a reboot helps.... [00:42] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #Apologetics. [00:42] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [00:43] hmmm anytimg cassidy and if you have any environmental engineering questions you know where to go :) [00:43] to the library :) [00:43] Bawn...all the time! [00:43] ouch [00:43] heheh [00:44] oooof~ [00:44] nethawk (bacharms@ash-cs-6.win.bright.net) left #Apologetics. [00:44] zen...I believe Ive abandoned you...sorry... [00:45] s'ok, i was reading. [00:45] reading what? [00:46] John [00:47] bawn is like asprin but without the severe stomach upset... [00:47] LOL [00:48] bawn...is alot like codine also....but she's legal in high doses and wonderfully addictive with no adverse side-effects... [00:48] :) [00:51] my novacaine for the rotten tooth of life.... [00:51] :) [00:51] Action: Bawn groans [00:51] ok....sore, not rotten [00:52] brb [00:52] ok [00:52] so zen...are u a rookie of Zen? [00:53] as in a freshman Buddist? [00:53] back [00:53] nah, just a cool nick i thought of once. at least, i think it's cool. [00:54] so you are bawn...all creation waited for your return... [00:54] Zen...rather deceptive, but cool. Do you lean toward theism at all? [00:55] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-59.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [00:56] Bawn...I waited for you with baited breath (smelled kinda like earthworms and Zeke's cheese-bait...didn't even get a bite...) [00:56] cassidy: i tend to be one who likes proof. call me a cynic, but there seems to be scare evidence to support the god of the bible. i do not discount out of hand thta god might exist. [00:56] thanks cassidy [00:57] hello Apologists [00:57] scare evidence should be scarce evidence :) [00:57] hi pergolesi [00:58] hello bawn...is there any particular topic...or what is going on tonight? [00:58] hmmm [00:58] I dunno looks like zen rookie is trying to find evidence that there is a God.. and cassidy is trying his best to find the cheesiest pick up line for me. [00:59] and I am sitting here politely twiddlling my thumbs [00:59] i have looked for evidence for more than 20 years. [00:59] ZenRookie, what sort of evidence are you looking for? [00:59] oh, well, if god were to appear to me personally, that would probably do it [01:00] Zen...as opposed to all us Christians who "dont" like proof? Read Alvin Plantinga...one of the formost theologians alive...or try Gorden H. Clark...also alive...a brilliant philosopher. There are a good many books written and in print updating the traditional arguments for God. +, there have been some new arguments, like the transendental argument that are in the philosophical arena right now. theres no doubt that Christian Theism is in the [01:00] worked for moses. [01:00] you are right, it worked for moses, but is any other evidence valid [01:00] Moses already believed when He got to see God. [01:01] cheezy, right. [01:01] hmmm, god did not come to me when i did believe. kind of a ripoff. [01:01] hmmm [01:01] Zen, Join the club. "blessed are those that do not see and yet believe" Christ said that. [01:01] so, are you saying that you did believe in God, but he did not reveal himself to you? [01:01] god seemed to have quite a lot of personal relationships with people back in the "olden days" he seems to have stopped tho [01:02] cassidy: that is a convenient verse, dont you think? [01:02] Zen...ask Padre Pio. He might tell you different. [01:03] i know that you will think it unbased, but in my philosophy, the simple fact that I can doubt god [01:03] 's existence, sways me to believe that he does not exist. [01:03] Zen...I dont know what you mean. I dont like it...I wish He would appear to me too...but you know? many have believed without appearences. If I was the ONLY one...that might be different. [01:03] hmmm [01:04] why is that zenrookie? do you think that if there were a God he would cause people to automatically have ingrained belief in Him? [01:04] Zen...what kind of argument is that? I doubt many things and yet am rationally compelled to accept them. [01:04] Zen, what makes you doubt God's existence? [01:04] my question always returns to "why?" why would god set it all up the way he did. it seems like such a bother. [01:04] What seems like a bother? [01:05] the whole "believe in me, but i am not gonna make it easy for you" thing [01:05] vote (canon@206.163.120.146) joined #Apologetics. [01:05] vote (canon@206.163.120.146) left #Apologetics. [01:05] Perhaps it is you who does not make it easy??? [01:05] bawn: to answer your question, yes, that is what i think [01:06] zenrookie. thanks. [01:06] zenrookie nice that you can decide What God would be like *if* he existed eh? :) [01:06] bawn: it divine [01:06] it's [01:07] Action: Bawn goes back to twiddling her thumbs [01:07] it's either what i think, or what i am told. i tend to believe myself more often [01:07] Zen...and if the why doesn't magically "click", then you disbelieve? that is irrational. To the extent that you are finite in understanding, compared to God who is omniscient, to that extent y ou must grant that it is possible that there exist circumstances that make our present world the best possible world that can still maintain freedom of the will for it's creatures. [01:07] Bawn! Sing us a song! [01:08] cassidy: i am not asking for magically click, but after 20 years, you would think there would be somethin gmore. [01:08] ok [01:09] I never gargled I never gambled I never smoked at all until I met my two good amigos Nick O Teen and Al K Hall [01:09] Zen, the assertion that things are not easy, and that we can not comprehend why the world is the way it is, does not in any way reject the possibility that God does exist [01:09] Action: Bawn sings [01:09] Zen...perhaps...I dont know. Many believe. Many dont. Good arguments and defences exist for the Faith. Some dont see them. I dont have the answers for that one. [01:09] per: i already stated that i do not reject the possibility of god's existence, however i do find it unlikely given the evidence. [01:09] amigos! sing more... [01:10] hmmm [01:10] Zen...what evidence do you propose that make the existance of God unlikely? [01:10] Action: Bawn wonders if this is kinda like a side show or something... do I get paid for singing as well? [01:10] cassidy, that's it exactly. what evidence? [01:11] perhaps i should have said "lack of evidence" [01:11] Action: Cassidy_ slaps a 20 spot on the table in front of bawn and waits for another lively tune.... [01:11] Action: Bawn pockets the money [01:12] Zen, where does Christ fit in your worldview? [01:12] Zen...Im asking you. You said His existance was unlikely...so tell us what you feel is compelling evidence for the existance of a universe without God? [01:13] Action: Bawn looks at the twenty [01:13] yeah right Jim this is monopoly money! [01:13] cassidy, the lack of direct sensual evidence of this god is what i base my conclusion on. [01:13] per: i don't know. [01:13] Action: Cassidy_ pulls out a wad of 20's and flashes them in front of bawn in an attempt to get anopther song or two... [01:14] I want money lots and lots of money I want the pie in the sky I wanna be rich [01:15] I spend money on lottery [01:15] my favorite number is 1 2 3 [01:15] Zen.....firstly, I think he can be argued for both inductively and deductively. Second, I believe that an explanation of Ethics or reason in a God-less world is a difficult task...I propose impossible. [01:15] ^MOMSTER (dananova@ppp16.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [01:16] I believe that for those who are philosophically challenged by the idea of God, should first and foremost examine the claims of the Bible, and determine them to be either true, false, or unintelligible. Have you examined these claims? [01:16] hi monster [01:16] <^MOMSTER> hulla [01:16] cassidy, and i would argue that basing morals or ethics on god is a cop out myself. [01:16] <^MOMSTER> Cassidy dude !!!!!! [01:16] Action: ^MOMSTER (((((((((( Cassidy_ )))))))))) [01:16] per: i have studied, read, and otherwise evaluated the entire bible many times. [01:17] And how do you see the claim of God as Creator? [01:17] Action: ^MOMSTER notes that you can study all you want , but without the proper tools you will get no where. [01:18] <^MOMSTER> :) [01:18] per: i do not hold that proving that there is a creator is sufficient to assert that the creator is god. [01:18] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[irv-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com] [01:18] there goes cass [01:18] momster: what would these tools be? [01:18] <^MOMSTER> bye all [01:18] ^MOMSTER (dananova@ppp16.snni.com) left #apologetics. [01:18] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [01:19] ^MOMSTER (dananova@ppp16.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [01:19] <^MOMSTER> sorry.... i missed that last question [01:19] <^MOMSTER> what was that?? [01:19] that is fair enough, yet it throws weight to that possibility if you believe in a creator [01:19] per: i have no idea how the universe got here. [01:20] momster: what would these tools be? [01:20] <^MOMSTER> I wasnt being specific, just a general statement [01:20] the Bible claims that God is the creator. We must realize that this claim is either true or false, correct? [01:20] per: in a biblical setting, yes, that statement is either true or false. [01:21] momster: then i did not understand what you meant. [01:22] Zen, I disagree, if I claim to be the creator, my claim is either true or false, regardless of my personal "setting" [01:22] <^MOMSTER> Well, what I meant is that you can study the Bible or anything for that matter, but if you are not studying with the proper tools you might as well not study at all. [01:22] momster: i do not understand what you mean by 'the proper tools' [01:22] <^MOMSTER> Meaning... [01:23] <^MOMSTER> If you are using a spanish dictionary to interpret a passage you will be lost. [01:23] <^MOMSTER> :) [01:23] unless the Bible is in Spanish :) [01:23] Mode change '+o ^MOMSTER ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [01:23] per: the bible states that god is the creator. eitehr god exists or does not, either there is or is not a creator. the bible is predefined to assign the role of creator to god, but, outside of the bible, there is no such pred efinition [01:23] <^MOMSTER> True Pergolesi [01:24] momster: is it then a tautology that if I have not found god after studying the bible, i must not have studied right? [01:24] Action: ^MOMSTER thinks Pergolesi knows the truth behind the statement. [01:25] <^MOMSTER> :) [01:25] <^MOMSTER> No zen..... [01:25] <^MOMSTER> However...if you were using the improper tools you might have a tougher time though. [01:26] <^MOMSTER> I have to run you guys!!!!! [01:26] <^MOMSTER> Have a great night! [01:26] momster: then i assert that i did study correctly and with the best of intentions, and came away with little evidence for god. [01:26] Zen, so is it the case that man can make no discernment regarding the truth of a claim in any setting? [01:26] bye moimster [01:26] <^MOMSTER> OK zen :) [01:26] -i [01:26] <^MOMSTER> whateveryousaysir! [01:27] <^MOMSTER> : [01:27] ^MOMSTER (dananova@ppp16.snni.com) left #apologetics. [01:27] per: that may just be [01:27] per: what i mean, is that if I already believe in the truth of the bible, then i would have no problem believing that the bible is true. see? [01:28] MrBell (Micah@ppp154.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [01:28] Let us then point to a specific example, one not inherent in the definition of God, nor predefined in the Bible, namely the person of Jesus Christ [01:28] ok, lets/ [01:29] Good, Jesus claims to be the Son of God [01:29] he did, and he claimed to be god also. correct. [01:29] Correct, now that claim must be true or false. Or as some have said, he must be liar, lunatic, or Lord. [01:30] ok [01:30] What is your opinion regarding the claims of Christ? [01:31] well, it would seem odd to me that there were so many people around at the time, yet only a few were believers. [01:31] it would tend to make me think that he was one of the first two [01:32] The fact that few believed lends merit to the falsity of his claims? [01:32] Many also thought that Gallileo was off of his rocker [01:33] are you comparing galileo to jesus christ? [01:33] Not at all, though I can make the comparison to claims of supposed truth [01:34] one must consider both the likelyhood of the claims, and the witnesses to such claims. outrageous claims, and few witnesses, to me does not lend merit to the claims. [01:34] It is also important to recognize that Jesus gained widespread acceptance outside of Jewish circles, and that the Jews were looking for a political messiah...which Jesus was not. [01:35] he was only accepted outside of jewish circles. [01:35] Not true, his disciples, the 12, were all jews [01:36] Let us talk about the claims of the witnesses. [01:37] as you said, jewish is both a political or cultural, and a religious thing. they were jews by heritage, but they would be christians as followers of jesus, no? [01:38] The followers of Jesus were looked upon as a dangerous Jewish sect. Notice that Jesus followed Biblical teachings. The term Christian did not come into use until the time of Paul. [01:39] ok, it seems like semantics to me, but continue. [01:40] The disciples, after Jesus' death, claimed that He was resurrected. [01:40] ok [01:40] This is a lofty claim! [01:40] quite [01:41] Why in the midst of political turmoil that sent Jesus to crucifixion, would the disciples claim that he had risen? [01:41] um, to fulfill scripture? [01:41] MrBell (Micah@ppp154.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [01:42] Yes, but would a false claim be worth the penalty of death? [01:42] is that the penalty for false claims? [01:43] In the book of Acts, the apostles continued preaching, against the orders of the Sanhedrin [01:43] Cant (thmcivor@pm126.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [01:44] Cant (thmcivor@pm126.spots.ab.ca) left #apologetics. [01:44] In fact such was the accusation given by the Sanhedrin against Jesus, that he claimed to be the King of the Jews, that is, God. [01:45] we must remember tho, that acts was written by one of the claimants in the first place. [01:45] Jesus received death, why also would not his followers who were perpetuating the claim [01:45] Grynner (wyckyd@du-44.socomm.net) joined #apologetics. [01:45] hello all [01:45] hello grynner [01:46] anything interesting tonite??? [01:46] does the fact the Luke wrote Acts and believed discredit his testimony? [01:47] grynner, we are discussing the validity of the claims of Christ and his followers [01:47] personaly??? I believe luke. Its Paul (saul) I don't trust [01:47] well, we are looking at the claims of the witnesses, i thought. if we mention events from acts, then we must also mention that the events were also made by the same person making the claims in the first place. [01:48] What do you mean that the events were made by the same person making the claims? [01:48] Are you referring to Jesus? [01:49] i should have said the "claims of the these events" were made by the same person who made the claims of jesus' godness, namely luke. [01:49] Yet Luke was not an eyewitness to these events. [01:49] which events? [01:50] He writes, " inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished... [01:50] not true. John also made claims as to Jesus being god [01:50] it seemed fitting for me to investigate everything carefully from the beginning [01:51] Why, so that you might know the exact truth about the things which you have been taught. [01:52] So, Luke was attempting to find the Truth in the midst of confusion [01:52] or so he says [01:52] But, we have still not figured out why the apostles would risk their necks for a lie? [01:52] luke was attempting to write a history and prove/disprove jesus while doing it [01:53] Pergolesi, the apostles didn't [01:53] the lies didn't start until paul (imho) [01:53] How better to destroy something than from the inside?????? [01:53] sorry all, i am kind of losing my focus on what we are arguing about, and i am quite tired. perhaps we can pick this up again tomorrow. [01:54] i must go to bed now, however. [01:54] good bye. [01:54] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left irc: Leaving [01:54] sure Zen, we'll talk again later [01:54] G'nite ZenRookie [01:54] so what's your slant on that???? agree/disagree???? [01:55] grynner, we were talking about the fact that those who claimed Jesus' resurrection put their lives at risk. [01:55] don't you mean forfeit??? after all, most all of tehm were killed for saying as much [01:56] yes, semantics, but when speaking to those with little background, it is best to use laymen's terms [01:56] ok. look at it this way [01:57] Jesus ( god or not doesn't matter here ) taught and did miricles for and in gods name [01:58] He had a core group of followers and an even larger number who valued what he had done and taught [01:58] Beaurang (dgallio@pmA02.iconnect.net) joined #apologetics. [01:58] Greetings all. [01:58] When he died they carried on his teachings, even tho they went in teh face of the "alliance" the Preists and the romans held [01:59] greetings beaurang [01:59] When they couldn't be stomped out, have their cheif persecutor "have a visitation" and pressure an old blind man into backing him up [02:00] Greetings Beaurang [02:00] To you both. [02:00] Am I intruding? [02:00] Then work on distorting, blending, and thinning the core beleifs of this group [02:00] no, not at all (yet I know not where we are going) [02:01] Ah...Quo Vadis? [02:01] You were questioning wether the gospels and their writers could be beleived. I suggest its not them who you should question but one who came later [02:02] And they were? [02:02] one Saul of Tarsus. One of Early Christianity's cheif opponents [02:03] That he was. [02:03] Until he saw. [02:03] You are mistaken, I was not questioning the believability of the gospels; rather, I was using Platonic dialogue to develop an argument [02:04] also, following his example, ( although belatedly ) the child of the holy roman empire as it experienced its "rebirth" [02:05] lol [02:06] Are both of you believers? [02:06] I am. [02:06] no, but I do love theology!! [02:07] May I be so bold as to ask why you believe Beaurang [02:07] Ah, understanding seeking faith, huh Gryn? [02:07] RedTango (silver@ip140.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:07] A gift from God. And evidence. [02:08] evidence of what? [02:08] Yes, truly a gift from God, but what evidence? [02:08] Greetings Red. [02:08] hello rt [02:09] hi! [02:09] Perg: Of God? Of Jesus' divinity? Which? [02:10] Hi Red [02:10] Just simply a witness of why you believe what you believe. [02:10] eh? [02:10] Red: Perg asked why we believe. I am attempting an answer. [02:11] Oh. [02:11] As to God, how about that nature has design. Which means there must be a designer. [02:12] Am i lagged or are you guys just taking a long time to type??? [02:12] just taking a long time [02:12] There doesnt have to be a designer. [02:12] Red: Then how do you account for the design in nature. That it has order. [02:12] rt: there does not have to, but can you explain such intricate design? [02:13] Beaurang, what about it's inherent Chaos as well????? [02:13] There is also imperfection as well. However, order doesnt prove anything, only that patterns are sucessful for survival. [02:13] Mnay animals have gone extince because their design did not work, they couldnt survive. [02:13] Even the chaos obeys the natural order. [02:14] Red: As it was meant to be. Yet they had design. Thus a designer. [02:14] order doesnt imply a conscience "creator." [02:14] wait!!! hold!!!! Are we gonna talk Chaos theory or Theology??? If teh former I gotta get a calculator. :} [02:15] "as it was meant to be?" why would an almighty designer allow for such flaws? [02:15] nonsense. [02:15] Red: If you pointed to a rocket ship, or even a can opener, would you not say it had an inventor? [02:15] what are considered flaws to us, may not be flaws to a designer [02:15] Perg: Right you are. [02:16] bea, you cant compare what a human creates to evolution of a planet, evolution has no "creator." [02:16] Oerg, explain why a God would create hundreds of animals that would die of extinction due to physical imperfections. [02:17] Red: How has the planet "evolved"? [02:17] Perg, i mean. [02:17] yet evolution follows laws of nature; from where did those laws of nature originate? [02:17] Red, that "could" be argued as Man's fault in his haste for technology and foolishness [02:17] Bea, i dont have enough time to give you the history of evolution here on IRC< but i trust you have heard it all before many times. [02:18] laws of nature came from a cycle older than the this universe itself [02:18] Red: Truly. [02:18] yes they did grynn, from where though [02:18] then you dont need to hear it from me. [02:19] Red: There are no intermediary life forms. None at all in the fossil record. [02:19] perg, that boils down to which of the legends/stories/histories you believe. [02:19] A fact that cannot be as yet proven except by belief [02:20] Red? [02:21] Bea, evolution is not as simple as that, you arent going to find a perfect line up of perfect skeletons to observe..millions of years tend to destroy and bury fossils, although every year, more and more fossils are being found. [02:21] Evidence from a designer argument is certainly impossible to prove [02:21] Red: Yet what has been found show no part fish/part dog, etc. Though you keep looking...and looking. [02:22] And looking. [02:22] hahaha [02:22] dont be ignorant. [02:23] we can say god or gods created the universe and its laws long ago and set the design in motion, or you can say, it was already there and playing out a cycle it has done many times before....but then, when did it start and by whos e hand or what circumstance??? [02:23] The fossil record shows that species are. Not that they evolved from other species, is the point. How is that ignorant? [02:23] This is simply evidence. [02:23] What is true is that species adapt to their environment...survival of the fittest...but we have no proof for the evolution of one species to another [02:24] Right again, Perg. [02:24] you arent going to find that because that isnt what evolution is about. Evolution isnt going to cater to those lame Christian models I have seen illustrated in books showing half a cow attached to a fish tail. [02:24] Red: You seem to be getting angry. [02:24] Evolution is a process so slow, you cant even fathom it, if you beleive that the earth is only a few thousands of years old. [02:24] accually, the fossil record indicates ( least for non homosapiens ) fairly conclusively that there were traceable stages of development/evolution [02:24] The thing with finding fossils is that you are only finding the bones, it used to be thought that dinosaurs were cold blooded, but their link to birds is being considered as a link to modern day birds. [02:25] Red: What they are finding are flying dinosaurs. [02:25] That is, science has the gift of re examining and rethinking possibilities. [02:26] Red: And so does faith in God have that gift! [02:26] Dinosaurs may not have been all lizards..some may have been predessors to modern animals. [02:26] Red: You use "may have been" and "considered." But still no proof. [02:26] Bea, nothing will prove anything to you. [02:27] Red:I feel the need to apologize to you. I sense I am getting smug. I am sorry. [02:27] Science and research have proven creation wrong, as well as stories in the bible regarding the flood, and all the simplistic dating. [02:27] The evolutionary view presupposes that all life began from a single point, without a creator intricately involved in the process. Likewise the Biblical view presupposes an involved creator. [02:27] I mean it too. [02:28] The idea of showing "proof" is a dead end, as i cant give you a line of skeletons starting from a fish and ending at a human, you will never present me with a phototgraph of God's face. And im not talking about a flower or something like that. [02:29] Red: Where are the bones? The evidence. Isnt scientific theory supposed to start with evidence? [02:29] Christians reject all scientific data, all of it. [02:29] Not just fossils. [02:29] Red: Biblical creation accounts were written for prehistoric man, as oral tradition, not necessarily to prove creation, but to point to God as creator [02:29] Red: Posh. [02:29] you present them with real, working tools and they reject it. [02:29] Red: I am a Christian and do not reject scientific data [02:30] Red: You are getting angry. [02:30] ? [02:30] Red: why can I as a Christian not use the working tools to understand our universe [02:30] All scientific tools are rejected [02:30] Pergolesi, but, what about the other creation accounts???? [02:31] Perg, I dont meet christins who accept carbon dating as legitimate, [02:31] What about them? [02:31] Red: what then do you mean? [02:31] regarding what? [02:32] You made the assertion that all Christians reject scientific data. such as? [02:32] i said i dont meet christians who..for example, accept carbon dating. [02:32] Some do not even beleive in plate tectonics. [02:32] just that the bible isn't the only place one finds creation myths/stories. It still boils down to what the individual believes at that point. Noone is neccesarily wrong, then again?? [02:33] But that is sheer silliness not to believe [02:33] Some still beleive that the theory of evolution involves people evolving from apes. [02:34] I think that we are on the same wavelength, Red, yet I am a Christian who believes in the validity of scientific evidence (to a good extent) [02:34] Grynner, it is wrong when those Gods and stories are supposed to be accepted by the general public as the only way to go. [02:35] and on that point I agree wholeheartledly [02:35] Perg, then you would admit that the earth seems to be quite a bit older than 6,000 years or so. [02:36] undoubtedly!!! I do believe that God could have created the earth in six days, but evidence points to the fact that He did not! [02:37] Red, you must know a lot of reactionary, uneducated Christians [02:37] Perg, it seems there are many sorts of christians, some who are very conservative and stick strictly with scripture, and those who take a more allegorical point of view. [02:37] I do not think that the creation account is an allegory... [02:38] but you just said you think it took longer than the bible's six days. [02:38] You must understand the circumstances under which the account was given [02:38] Prehistoric, oral, etc. [02:39] Prescientific [02:39] It just blows my mind that in 1996, grown adults really think the first woman came from the rib of a man. [02:39] Yes, it is very hard to believe, but listen, we did not live in such a time [02:40] "such a time" is a fantasy. [02:40] False, to those people, those things were reality [02:40] Can you picture a prescientific world? [02:40] Not a fantasy, Red, a prescientific era. [02:41] They were trying to express a fundamental truth...that God creates. [02:41] That man and women are of the same nature. [02:42] Lightning was not understood as electrical particles, but as an evil force coming from the sky, from the gods, which caused destruction and "fire" [02:42] The "rib" story was a way to express that truth. [02:42] Correct Beau [02:42] The thing about christianity is that the followers often scoff at other religions and cultures, calling their Gods false idols, dismissing their stories of creation as mere myths, mocking them, even being frightened of them.... [02:42] ...yet to me, christianity is no different, just another culture. [02:42] with its own myths and beliefs. [02:43] This is a difficult subject, but Judeo-Christian culture makes unique claims [02:43] Many religions are "unique" you arent the only one. [02:43] Red: Like evolution is a myth to the "scientific" post-modern culture. [02:43] There is nothing more special about yours than anyone elses. [02:43] Red: Every culture has its "myths." [02:44] I said that it makes unique claims!! [02:44] Bea, if evoltion is a myth, and God is real, show me a photo of God. You cant. [02:44] Red: Jesus. [02:44] jesus what? [02:45] A "photo" of God. [02:45] show me a photo. [02:45] Jesus was the embodiment of God, at least such is the claim. [02:45] That a human heart can change. That is Christian evolution. [02:45] certainly, with all these people "seeing" the Lord, someone certainly has been able to take a picture of "him." [02:45] Show me a photo, please. [02:46] No cameras in 33 ad. [02:46] I dont think my request is that unreasonable. [02:46] Only the testimony of history. [02:46] Red, you might be goin' a tad literal here....tho the point does have merits... [02:46] Red: show me a photo of love. You can not. It is not physical, yet it exists and shows itself in various ways to various people [02:47] Red: Show me a photo of air. Yet you believe it. [02:47] I dont think asking for a photo is being too literal, if God is real. [02:47] Is air real? [02:47] Perg, but God isnt a "concept"..is he? He is suppposedly is real. [02:48] Red: Can time be photographed? [02:48] Can space? [02:48] Can sound? [02:48] Red: before microscopes, skeptical scientists said "sure there are atoms" Yet they do exist and we now have the tool to see them. [02:48] Bea, you can see air when it has enough moisture in it. [02:48] Red: You see the moisture, not the air. [02:48] i.e. FOG [02:48] steam [02:49] Steam is water. [02:49] you can track sound scientifically using osiloscopes. [02:49] not really. then you are seeing the moisture, not the air [02:49] Red: You can track the mind of God through, once again, design. [02:50] Perg, interesting coment about atoms, that scince has actually been used to prove what was once considered unprovable, yet science seems to have little merit for many christians. [02:50] Red: before oscilloscopes, if I told you that I could track sound, you'd of thought me crazy [02:50] Perg, and science once again proves itself. [02:50] Beaurang, but who's design??? Which gods or mans????? ( playing devils ad.here ) [02:50] Yes, but science has not explained all [02:50] The idea of evolution originally began with scietific observation of stars. [02:51] And it is a mistake to see our modern science as the end all [02:51] Red: To you believe that Jesus was God? [02:51] Beleivers think that there is no more "creation" going on..that what we have is all there will be. [02:51] Bea, i am an atheist. [02:51] Time and space were scientifically PROVEN linear before Einstein [02:51] Red: What were you born as? [02:51] born as? [02:52] Were you born into a certain faith? [02:52] no [02:52] Were your parents Christian? [02:52] no [02:53] Red: The main point for me is that science does not disprove God for me, in fact it leads to a better understanding for me. [02:53] Perg, cool [02:53] Im not here to undermine anyone's faith in God [02:54] Red: I was once an athiest. From age 16 to 34. [02:54] Im sure you were. [02:54] ? [02:54] ! [02:54] I think, though, that beyond the scientific/creation realm of questioning, one must seriously consider the claims of Christianity [02:55] I consider that a wise statement. [02:56] Whether or not you believe it in the long run is a side issue, but the fact remains that Christianity makes ultimate claims upon all men. [02:56] Of course, because its basis is in controlling the masses. [02:57] Red: have you examined the claims of Christianity from the scripture itself? [02:57] not directly, i get to experience them in politics. [02:58] Red: You as a scientist should examine the evidence yourself. No? [02:58] It's funny, the Jews were looking for a political messiah, and rejected Jesus because he was not [02:58] Im not a scientist [02:58] Are you a politician [02:59] no [02:59] Then, what the heck do you do? [02:59] bizarre questions [02:59] Nonetheless you are a thinking man, Red. A thinking man should examine the evidence. No? [02:59] television production [02:59] Are you a Communist dancer? [02:59] no, im not. [03:00] haha [03:00] Bea, you are wrong [03:00] hehehe [03:00] hahaha! [03:00] Although i appear to be a thinking man, im not. [03:01] You are a searching man? A seeker? [03:01] nope [03:01] Alas. [03:01] you overlook the obvious. [03:01] Being? [03:01] you wouldnt make a very good scientist, stick to the bible. hahaha [03:02] hohoho [03:03] Red: I have enjoyed jawing with you, but I must retire. I hope that you will consider doing a little searching in the Christian arena. [03:03] Good night all! [03:03] G'nite Pergolesi!!! [03:03] Good night, Perg. See you again! [03:03] Its been fun!!! [03:03] Truly. [03:03] Perg, i have, and im not interested in what i have found. [03:04] Christianity doesnt suit my nature at all. [03:04] But you said that you haven't read from the Bible. [03:04] hehehehe [03:05] How do you know that it is not the truth? [03:05] Perg, i do not beleive in Gods of any sort. I do not beleive in angels, devils, hell or heaven, or afterlife. [03:05] Its not the truth. it is a reflection of the fantasies of men and promotes the political agenda of men. [03:05] What does that have to do with considering the claims of Jesus? [03:06] I dont beleive in Jesus as the saviour of anything. People make other people out to be heroes and legends. [03:06] Perg: If your are not going to bed, I am. Goodnight all. [03:06] Bea [03:07] Yes? [03:07] hehehehehe [03:07] Action: RedTango sees you! [03:07] She laughs. [03:07] Red: I will see you again, my friend. [03:08] Well all, I'm off to bed. [03:08] RedTango (silver@ip140.lax.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [03:08] G'nite!!!!! [03:08] And to all!! [03:08] Grynner (wyckyd@du-44.socomm.net) left #apologetics. [03:09] Bye Perg. [03:09] Red, you are very much like my best friend. I believe you would get along beautifully. [03:09] And good job tonight. [03:10] gnight beaurang [03:10] Yes, I believe this is true. See you again here again. [03:10] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-59.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [03:11] Beaurang (dgallio@pmA02.iconnect.net) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_2_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