[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/13/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/13/96 [02:00] G

---
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 - 4/13/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/13/96 [02:00] Gromit (gromit@206.83.134.6) joined #apologetics. [02:03] Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) joined #apologetics. [02:03] hey Gromit [02:04] Deanr? [02:04] Sharisha (sigh@134.193.59.3) joined #Apologetics. [02:04] Hello there. [02:05] i'm lagged [02:05] CTCP PING: 829375535 from Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) to #apologetics [02:05] hey there [02:05] Hello Sharisha [02:06] Sharisha: what about control? [02:06] whoa...busy night [02:06] okay. [02:07] What is control used for? [02:07] obvious quetion [02:07] question even [02:07] The issue is when "hell" was inserted into Scripture, yes? You replied with "control". Please explain. [02:08] Wooo...what have I stumbled on to here? [02:08] What is control used for? [02:09] Sharisha: please explain your position if you would. [02:09] I am. lets go socratic. its easier. [02:09] What is control used for? [02:10] by whom? [02:10] control in general [02:10] Sharisha: I have no idea what you're talking about. Please enlighten me. [02:10] okay...well start in the begining. [02:10] what is control? [02:10] That's a very good place to start [02:11] I hate lag [02:11] well, unless you are writting an epic, but this isn't on that par. [02:11] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-79.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:12] Howdy Pergo [02:12] hello gromit, what's happening in the room tonight? [02:13] hell. [02:13] Dunno, looks like they are skriting the issue of Hell... [02:13] Sharisha: I don't know about control. [02:13] Sharisha: I'm waiting for you to explain. [02:13] I kinda came in on the middle. [02:13] Gromit: I have been up 29 hours straight...I am barely coherent much less deep at this point. work with me [02:13] hmmmm [02:13] tobe (DJ@dj.bayarea.net) joined #apologetics. [02:13] No prob. 8o) [02:14] hi [02:14] hi tobe [02:14] oh...i thought that was to be...as in Shakespeare... [02:15] tobe (DJ@dj.bayarea.net) left #apologetics. [02:15] Sharisha: you said that the concept of hell is mythology.. made up by Christianity. I asked how and when it was inserted into Scripture. We haven't made it must past this. [02:15] gromit, can you prove the existence of hell :) [02:16] DeanR: did you see what I told gromit...i haven't slept in...30 hours at this point in time exactly. It will take me a bit [02:16] Sure...I got a parking stub. [02:16] hehe [02:16] Sharisha: do you realize how many times.. and in how many seperate books of scripture that hell is referred to? Now.. since it is mentioned so many times.. what your contending.. is that somehow... the early church inserted this fa lse doctrine in all [02:17] DeanR: it is the same book. It is a...motiff. A theme carried thorugh out the book. [02:17] these seperate books.. and somehow further.. inserted it so that the rest of the text would mold nicely around the topic. Don't you think that is a bit far fetched? [02:18] Sharisha: you don't know much about how Scripture was written and compiled do you? [02:18] inkling (inkling@206.83.134.11) joined #apologetics. [02:18] the concept of hell? [02:18] INK! [02:18] hi [02:18] hi inkling [02:18] GROM! [02:18] Hola Senor DeanR [02:18] hello inkling, are you fresh? [02:18] DeanR: books are made to have themes...and hell fits in nicely. [02:19] Fresh as a fine Belgian Waffle [02:19] The thing that amazes me is the abandoning of the concept of truth. [02:19] Belgians Rule!? [02:19] Sharisha: again, how and when was this false doctrine so nicely inserted? [02:19] I wonder how many Belgians will go to Hell [02:19] Deanr: it all started when it was written. [02:19] Amen Grom [02:19] Sharisha: in other words, evidence man... show me some evidence. [02:20] Deanr: there is no evidence other than the way the book was written [02:20] Gromit: truth is all relative [02:21] I believe that the issue relies on faith [02:21] Wrong Shar [02:21] Nothing is absoulute? [02:21] ink: nice judgement [02:21] If truth is all relative, why debate or even discuss *anything*? [02:21] Sharisha: a rather significant claim to be adhering to that has no evidence, eh Sharisha? [02:21] Shar...discernment isn't "judgement" [02:21] ink: wrong. that is a judgemtn word dictating that something is right and something is wrong [02:22] The sun exists. Absolute truth....2 + 2 = 4. Absolute truth [02:22] Math does not count. [02:22] if all is valueless, then why should we discuss anything? [02:22] Shar...something IS right, and some things ARE wrong. Child Molesting IS wrong. [02:22] okay..obviously this is a happy invite the pagan to kick the poor thing around discusion. No one even wanted to hear my opinion, you were all looking for an argument. Grow up, boys. [02:23] Sharisha (sigh@134.193.59.3) left #Apologetics. [02:23] Shar, it is hardly judgmental to agree with every major world religion and philosophy and say that , e.g., lying is wrong [02:23] well, he sure told us and put us in our places, eh? [02:23] Sharisha didn't give an argument though [02:23] Guess she lost...and, imagine that, she blamed her gender [02:24] damn, Ink, lighten up. [02:24] how can you lose when you don't play? [02:24] I'm light as a lilting Belgian Waffle [02:25] I'm heading back to #inklings...my work is done here :) [02:25] inkling (inkling@206.83.134.11) left #apologetics. [02:25] What's going on in inklings. [02:26] nada, right now [02:26] Inks got a fire in his belly...dude got a bad tude. [02:27] uh huh uh huh, wella wella uh huh [02:28] ??? [02:28] sorry my alter ego, Vinny Barbarino surfaced [02:28] hehehe [02:29] I think it may be time for chaos [02:32] Deanr (deanh@206.53.160.3) left #apologetics. [02:45] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-79.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [02:50] Gromit (gromit@206.83.134.6) left #apologetics. =================================================================== [14:37] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [14:37] I am here, and waiting [14:37] Acolyte. [14:37] hey [14:37] howz it goin' [14:37] what up? [14:37] Word to my man Acolyte. [14:37] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) joined #apologetics. [14:37] welcome [14:37] hello [14:38] So... [14:38] Could we go back to Lorenzo Snow's comment? [14:38] sure [14:38] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) joined #apologetics. [14:38] If I understand you object to the idea that God was once "like" us and that we can become "like" him? [14:39] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [14:39] yes, I object [14:39] Can you tell me why? [14:39] Oh, I see Acolyte. You just wanted to op yourself, That's why you wouldn't come to my channel :) [14:39] jharrell Orthodox christians reject the notion that God is temporal and that there is more than one true deity [14:39] One more time: the idea that man can become Godlike contradicts the Bible [14:39] Mode change '+o PMantis ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [14:40] Guys, I'll stay with this, but could we stay with one questions at a time? [14:40] jared (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [14:40] sure. one question at a time is great. [14:40] brb [14:40] hi jared [14:40] Pmantis: The idea of deification is taught in the Bible, as well as by early christian leaders [14:40] how you doin' this fine Saturday. [14:40] What is "brb"? [14:40] Jharrell, no bible bot, but you are going to have to back up that statement with scripture. [14:41] Ok, let me get my scriptures [14:41] brb = be right back [14:41] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [14:41] Ok, here we go [14:41] hello :) [14:41] hello [14:41] hello cannibal [14:42] hi jharrell :) [14:42] jharrel while it is true that some early Christains taught the Doctirne of Theosis, it is NOT taking on God's essence ontologically, which is what the lds claim. [14:42] greetings and felicitations PMantis [14:42] what we are doing here is discussing problems (as I see them) with mormon doctrine, one issue at a time. [14:42] pmantis there is a bible bot here [14:42] Acolyte: In plain english please [14:42] Acolyte: scroll up, I just said back it up, I didn't say he had to use a bot. :) [14:43] As we start, how does the Bible bot worlk? [14:43] work? [14:43] jharrel,ok they theought we became like God in our moral likness not in his nature [14:43] Acolyte: thanks [14:43] like that [14:43] same as Logos, kjv, right? [14:43] yes [14:43] cool [14:44] bible bots rule [14:44] excellent [14:44] no niv tho [14:44] that's fine, the KJV will do just fine, but I wish we would upgrade to NKJV [14:44] Acolyte, is it capable of displaying the ASV? [14:44] Nick change: jared -> `CyberGuy [14:45] cannibal asv? [14:45] oh [14:45] i am not sure [14:45] Acolyte, American Standard Version [14:45] cannibal yeah I got it [14:45] i mean I understood asv [14:45] OK, the bot is our friend now, so let's get to the topic at hand "deification" [14:46] Ok lets start here [14:46] What is Pauls saying? [14:46] jharrell, you can start there with Pmantis, but I would like to see how you justify your use of the bible and your authority to interpret it seeing that you are not part of the Church and that the Bible belongs to the Church [14:47] jharrl that is, I do not accept your presuption that you have the authority to rightly interpret the bible at all [14:47] Acolyte: OK, so you interpret it, what does this passage say? [14:48] `CyberGuy (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) got netsplit. [14:48] Acolyte, Do you believe that no one but a Christian (definition to follow no doubt:) can use the bible to establish a point in a debate? [14:50] jharrell if you do a word study on children you will see in all places in scriptures that we are ADOPTED CHILDREN of God ...there was only one Son of God [14:50] Anyone can misinterpret the Bible. I am sure we all do. But the Bible, being an inspired work, by it's nature does not allow for vast amounts of logical extrapolation. [14:50] jharell that the Spirit teaches us and bears witness to our confort and that we are shares in the victory of Christ [14:50] jharrell St paul teaches us there that we are united to Christ by his Humanity [14:50] Roy: I agree - adopted - But what about the joint-heirs part in what way are we glorified with him? [14:51] jhareel sure, we are co-heirs with Messiah we are united to him inhis Humanity [14:51] So do either of you want to answer the question? [14:51] And Acolytes point about "adopted children" vs "son of God" is well made. It is clear in many scriptural instances. [14:51] jharrell I just did [14:51] in fact, check out this [14:51] Acolyte: We are united with him in "glory" not humanity [14:51] jharrell we are united to the Messiah in his Humanity, hence as Son of Man we will sit with him [14:52] jhareel it is both [14:52] jharrell, the Body is glorified [14:52] OK, so in what way do we partake of his glory? [14:52] jharela nd we are presently seated with him in glory, since he is the Covenant head [14:52] jharrell ethically first and formost [14:52] Action: Cannibal notes that xian theology seems to teach that xians (as the new humanity - spiritual descendants of the last Adam) are united to Christ in his humanity, and that this union is eternal. [14:52] jharrell then our human nature becomes like HIS human nature at the resurrection [14:53] Acolyte: and what does that mean we will be? [14:53] cannibal Christ is the Everlasting Man [14:53] jharrel Glorified Humans [14:53] exactly [14:53] jharrel we willbe like him for we shall see hiim, just as he is [14:53] "Glorified Humans" like Christ? [14:54] `CyberGuy (jared@ppp6.cuug.ab.ca) got lost in the net-split. [14:54] jharrell sure, except we are not incarnations of Deity, we have one nature ontologically, he has two united in one person [14:54] Acolyte, I know of Chalcidon(sp?) :) [14:54] Jesus is God, and like God, is eternal. He was not a human first [14:54] cannibal chalcedon, ;) [14:54] The point is we become like Christ right? [14:55] jharrell the point is that we become like christ in what he redeemed, not in what was not redeemed [14:55] Shostakov (shoubeck@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net) joined #Apologetics. [14:55] jharrel christ redeemed our bodies and souls, not his deity, so what is raised to Glory is our bodies and souls [14:55] But you just said we become "glorified humans" like Christ [14:56] jharrell sure, inso far as jesus HUmanity was glorified, we will be like Him in that glorified humanity [14:56] PMantis, Do you think his taking on of human nature changed him in any way? [14:56] Acolyte, I was close mate :) [14:56] We may share characteristics with God, the Father, and the Son, like Free Will, the ability to determine right from wrong, etc. Sharing characteristics with God does not make us Gods. [14:56] cannibal I willlet it slide dude. ;) [14:56] Actually, I would say gods [14:56] little "g" [14:56] pmantis those are communicable attirbutes, ethical mostly [14:56] the distinction is lost on me. [14:57] jharrell little g or biog G, Jesus says there is only ONE true God, so any other God is a false God [14:57] jharrell hence little g is a false god [14:57] PMantis, Isn't it true that only the good (as in not fallen) have true freedom of the will, since all others are in bondage to sin. [14:57] Tell me, would you interpretation be different if early church fathers believed and taught the idea of deification? [14:57] pmantis ok what is INcommunicable is like his omnipresence, omniscicnece etc, his moral attributes he does communicate with us. [14:58] jhareel I derive my teaching fromt eh Fathers [14:58] brb [14:58] glo` (gcw@dp1-060.ppp.iglou.com) joined #apologetics. [14:58] OK, shal we look at what some of them taught? [14:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [14:59] adopted children carry no common nature of their parents...but they can inherit anything the parents bestow on their children but God will not share his glory with another.Isiah 42:8 [14:59] jharrell, The term deification is still in use in the Catholic communion. [15:00] jharrl that is fine, I am quite familair with the PAtristics, but you chruch says hthat they were apostates, so do you go to ppl you consider apostates for your teaching? [15:00] don't confuse Catholicism with Biblical Christianity [15:00] pmantis just chill dude [15:00] Acolytes: You may want to be careful about what you assume that we teach [15:00] Acolyte: you Catholic? Please say it isn't so! [15:00] jharrell and the same goes for you [15:00] Pmantis I am Anglican [15:01] jharrel we don't assume anything. I read the doctrine, articles of faith, etc. [15:01] PMantis, I have no problems with distinguishing Protestant varieties of xianity from Catholicism :) [15:01] jharrel I have read the Patrictis all 40+ volumes and I have read gobs of lds theology as well [15:01] Acolytes: Have I made any assumptions about your belief? [15:01] jharrell yes [15:01] Li9ke what? [15:01] like [15:01] Cannibal: Christians aren't denominational by definition. The Bible is the only authority, being the only written work of God. [15:01] jharrel that the early chruch taught your understanding of theosis, which they did not [15:02] cwewwess (deadhead@pmc16.rt66.com) joined #apologetics. [15:02] ok, lets look shall we? [15:02] glo` (gcw@dp1-060.ppp.iglou.com) left #apologetics. [15:02] pmantis that is an inhouse debate, lets concentrate at the issue at hand [15:02] PMantis, are you in a denomination? [15:02] nope [15:02] jharrlehave you beenreadng the bk by lds, Are Mormons CHristains?" ? [15:02] I am a Christian: a believer in Justification by Faith in Jesus' Death and Resurrection. [15:03] Sammoda (Intouch@l-pool.u-net.com) joined #Apologetics. [15:03] pmantis that is an inhouse debate, lets concentrate at the issue at hand [15:03] Acolyte: I was answering questions posed by cannibal [15:03] pmanitis just reminding u [15:03] thanks [15:03] "If the word became a man, it is so that men may become gods" Saint Ireanus - Against Heresies [15:03] Acolyte: No, haven;t read the book you refer to [15:03] Jhareel what is your source for that quote? [15:04] Saint? who made him a saint? Who says he was right? [15:04] Against Heresies Book 5 Preface [15:04] jhareel I know what St Ireneaus is saysing since I have read Against Heresies, have your ead it, or just that quote? [15:04] PMantis, how do you know that Catholicism is not "Biblical Christianity"? [15:04] Sammoda (Intouch@l-pool.u-net.com) left #Apologetics. [15:04] Cannibal forget that convo for now plz [15:04] Cannibal: because Catholic Doctrine contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the Bible [15:05] Acolyte, gladly mate :) [15:05] Pmanits put a corq in it [15:05] corq? [15:05] cork whatever [15:05] u know what I meant [15:06] "Yea, I say, the word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god" Saint Clement of Alexandria, Exortation ot the Greeks [15:06] Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies or did you just read that citation? [15:06] Are you guys there? [15:06] cwewwess (deadhead@pmc16.rt66.com) left #apologetics. [15:07] Mormon Doctrine teaches that God was a sinner. [15:07] I don't believe God was a sinner [15:07] Jharrell I asked u a question, please answer [15:07] Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies or did you just read that citation? [15:07] Are you guys there? [15:07] Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies or did you just read that citation? [15:07] Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies or did you just read that citation? [15:07] Jharrell have you raed Against Heresies or did you just read that citation? [15:07] cwewwess, hello are you atheist, Christian, ham, or gnostic today? [15:07] jharrell, I am here [15:07] jharrell, I suppose that the quotes are taken from a Mormon publication? [15:08] Acolyte, patience mate :) [15:08] Can you see what I am writing? [15:08] jharrell, yes I can. [15:08] yes [15:08] Jharrel, Tertullian, the Father of LAtin Theology says that the Heretics twist the Fathers our of context, which you are doing [15:08] Can you hold on a minute? [15:08] Jharrell as does Athanasius of Alexandira, the Father of Orthodoxy [15:08] we will be here [15:09] I'm having trouble with my system, I'm going to leave the channel, I'll be right back [15:09] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) left #apologetics. [15:09] jharrell the Council fo Nicea and the condemendx the idea that Theosis meant anyting other than like God in an ethical sense [15:09] Shostakov: on my channel now! [15:09] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) joined #apologetics. [15:09] jharrell the Council fo Nicea and the condemendx the idea that Theosis meant anyting other than like God in an ethical sense [15:09] are you there? [15:10] Acolyte, I would imagine that jharrell has taken the quotes of the fathers from a Mormon publication. It is likely that he has not read the full English translations of the fathers. [15:10] jharel yes I am here [15:10] cannibal I know :) [15:10] I'm sorry, I was having trouble with my system, the screen became garbled [15:10] jharrel have you read these works cover to cover, or just these citations from another work? [15:10] jharrel have you read these works cover to cover, or just these citations from another work? [15:11] No, I have not read the full works, I was just presenterd with these references recently. Some of them I have found in the source material, some as yet I have not [15:12] I suppose that only jharrell and I are not xian (definition as per Acolyte:). [15:12] However, just because I have not read the full work, does not mean that the they are not correctly cited [15:12] jharrell, have you read anything frm scholarly source on what the doctrine of Theosis in the early Chruch? [15:13] jhareel no, thatis so, but it rasies the probability that they are taken out of context [15:13] Mormon doctrine on this issue simply says that we are the children of God and as such, we may become like him [15:13] Action: PMantis 's definition: Christians believe in Justification by Faith that Jesus CHrist died on the cross, bearing our sins away from the world, then, now, and for all time. We believe in the Bible. We believe that Jesus rose. We believe t hat Salvation is by faith, and faith alone, and not through works [15:14] jharrell, Is the view(s) of the fathers important in your system of belief? [15:14] Acolyte: You are correct, that is why I have been trying to locate each of them in context and examine them [15:14] jharrell, the Early Fathers did teach a KIND of Deificiation, they did nto teach the LDS kind, which you can find out by asking any informed Theologian of Roman Catholocism, Anglicanism or ORthodoxy, which all still teach the doc tine of THeosis to this day [15:14] Cannibal, not especially [15:14] shall we talk about some of the other teachings contained in mormon doctrine? [15:14] Acolyte: What "kind" of deification did they teach? [15:14] jharrell, Mormon doctrine comes from many sources, right? and some of the sources are living today if I am not misinformed. [15:14] Pmantis that is a rather Protestant interpretation, I think we can agree on the Nicean Creed as Calvin and Luther did for our purposes presently [15:15] Cannibal: Yes [15:16] "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost" (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg [15:16] jharrell, they taught that we were fully embued with God's communicable attributes, not his INCOMMUNICABLE attributes, since we are children by Creation and then by Adoption, not children by NATURE, as Jesus is. Hence we are a cr eature, we cannot be a crea [15:16] In other words, God came down and had spiritual intercourse with Mary, begetting Jesus. Repulsive. [15:16] jharrell, Would I be correct in assuming that the fathers are not a source of your views on becoming a god, but are a historical link that you wish to use as a support for your beliefs. [15:17] cannibal excellent point [15:17] PMantis: YOu are making a large jump [15:17] Did anyone hear what ezra benson had to say? [15:17] Acolyte, I try mate :) [15:17] large jump? Not begotten by the Holy Ghost? The bible says so. [15:17] Cannibal: If I understand you correctly, yes [15:17] KJarvs1 (KJarvs111@www-23-249.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [15:17] That is clearly a contradiction [15:17] cannial well said tho, very well said [15:17] cannibal very precise [15:17] does anyone want to make money? [15:18] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics. [15:18] PMantis: Tell me wher the quote you cite says anything about intercourse between God and Mary [15:18] jharrell, what is the exact source of your belief on this subject? And would you ever question that source? [15:18] Nick change: KJarvs1 -> Dter999 [15:18] Wow...busy... [15:18] DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE MONEY? [15:18] Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; [15:19] that last is from (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158). [15:19] Dter999 (KJarvs111@www-23-249.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [15:19] PMantis, I think that view (Mary & god having intercourse) is a Muslim view (not official). [15:19] Action: Acolyte notes that the Trinitarianism of the Early Fathers excludes the LDS view of deification [15:19] Cannibal: I believe the the text of the Bible indicates that we may become like our father. I alos believe the teachings of the prophets of the restoration [15:20] Muslim??? [15:20] PMantis: Put it on the board for all to see [15:20] Heh heh heh, [15:20] Jharrel Robert M. Bowman, Jr, did an article a few years ago on this issue, you can aquire it for free in the WWW [15:20] "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as w e were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 8:115). [15:20] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) got netsplit. [15:20] jharrell, would you accept "the prophets of the Restoration" as final? [15:21] PMantis: Did you know that the First presidency closed the publication of "The Seer" because it was publishing incorrect teachings? [15:21] Cannibal it is an Sialmic misunderstanding that many Muslims have, tho it is not rooted inthe Quran [15:21] "Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547). [15:21] Acolyte, I know :) [15:21] jharrel how abut Hournal of Discourses? [15:21] I didn't even quote the seer [15:21] Journal even [15:21] how about mormon doctrine? [15:21] Cannibal: If they are speaking in the capacity of a prophet yes [15:21] have they admitted that "Mormon Doctrine" is false teaching? [15:22] "And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal fath er. [15:22] Pmatis: Mormon Doctrine by BRM is not a source of offical Church Doctrine neither is the JoD [15:22] jharrell, Is this faith in the prophets fundamental to your beliefs? [15:22] that last is from (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158). [15:22] + [15:22] (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.742). [15:22] PMantis: Yes, you did qoute "The Seer" [15:23] Cannibal: Yes it is [15:23] pete (peter.mor@kbh1-2.diatel.dk) joined #Apologetics. [15:23] jharrel the doctrine of Theosis does nto nor never has taught that man becomes god by nature, on ethically we become like God [15:23] on=only [15:23] Acolyte: no way [15:23] Acolyte, I reckon you will have to establish the validity of biblical revelation, and the erroneous nature of the Prophets if you want to make much headway. [15:24] I have given sources from my quotes. Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, etc. [15:24] jharrel, plus the facts that the Fathers taught that the PErsons of the Trinity were the sme BEING, which the lds deny, for a reference sss James Talmage, Articles of the Faith. [15:24] cannibla that is aprt of it [15:24] Pmantis: You realize that you have yet to quote an official source of doctrine for the LDS? [15:25] Pmantis in Glorification u will be without sin, will you not? [15:25] jhareel how is Pearl of GReat Price? [15:25] pete (peter.mor@kbh1-2.diatel.dk) left irc: [15:25] jharrel is the POGP official enough? [15:26] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) got lost in the net-split. [15:26] Acolyte: Yes [15:26] It is scripture [15:26] roy- (Rooster@205.218.167.40) joined #Apologetics. [15:26] jharrel the book of Moses clearly teaches polytheism, that there is more than one deity, do you deny this? [15:27] No [15:27] do you affirm it? [15:27] jharrel: that is not true. [15:27] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics. [15:27] PMantis, did you miss the discussion I had with jharrell? [15:27] question: How can anyone pretend that deity belief is "rational?" [15:27] hullo damocles [15:28] We will probably have to define terms, but go ahead [15:28] damocles easy, I don't pretend [15:28] Damocles, rational need not be the same as true :) [15:28] damocles how can any maintiant hat the beleif in Atheism is rational? [15:28] jharrell, do you believe in many gods? [15:28] all: Okay, thanks for the input. The inability to defend that contention pretty much vindicates my opinion. [15:28] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics. [15:28] jharell do you affirm that the book of Moses teaches many deities? [15:28] Shostakov!shoubeck@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net kicked by PMantis!wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com: PMantis [15:28] Mode change '+b *!*@pm095-29.dialip.mich.net ' by PMantis!wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com [15:29] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca14-24.ix.netcom.com) left #Apologetics. [15:29] Cannibal: I believe that there are many gods, for me however there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ [15:29] Acolyte: Yes [15:29] jharrell, are all the gods equal? [15:29] Cannibal: No [15:29] jharrell, how can a finite become an infinite? [15:29] jharrell, is there one or many that are supreme? [15:30] Acolyte: By the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ [15:30] Cannibal: One [15:30] jharrell, how do you have more than one infinite? [15:30] jharrell, the others then are gods relative to us, but not relative to Jehovah? [15:31] cannibal Jehovah and Elohim have very different meaings tolds than you are generall acustomed to in xianity [15:31] Acolyte, I know [15:31] cannibal just checking [15:31] :) [15:32] Cannibal: Would youu restate your question? [15:32] you [15:32] jharrell, the others then are gods relative to us, but not relative [15:34] Cannibal: I don't presume to know much about other Gods, since my allegiance is to my Father in heaven and his Son. However, if what you are asking is relative to the "station" of those who ar e deified, then yes "higher" than us, and "lower" than God [15:35] lag seems to be getting the better of me. [15:35] jharrell, yes that is what I did mean. [15:35] jharrell, are the gods that are lower than God infinite in their attributes? [15:36] Folks, I'm over the amount of time that I wanted to spend here,m would any of you be interested in continuing this by email? [15:37] jharrell, not me, I am a simple atheist :) [15:37] Cannibal: I don't know [15:37] :-) [15:37] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics. [15:37] Anyone ready to answer my question now? [15:37] What is your question? [15:37] Damocles repeat your qyuestion [15:38] jharrell is the father and son the same God or 2 different dieties [15:38] jharrell is the father and son the same God or 2 different dieties? [15:38] Icarus (Marillion@198.190.226.24) joined #apologetics. [15:38] Acolyte: One in purpose, seperate in substance [15:38] ac, hows it goin [15:38] its me loathian [15:38] jharrell, that's ok, I couldn't expect you to know everything about Mormonism. [15:38] jharrel seperate dieties, 2 dieties then [15:38] Sure! How can anyone pretend to have a rational reason for belief in deity constructs? That shouldn't be too difficult a question to answer. If anyone had text files available which might answer the question, send them. Than ks. [15:38] Cannibal: do you? [15:38] icarus just in time [15:39] Damacles see our web page [15:39] aco: I would love to. Might I FTP all the files from it? [15:40] Acolyte: Yes 2 [15:40] Acolyte, a little like the JW distinction. [15:40] jharrell, no, like I said I am a simple atheist. [15:40] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [15:40] I guess we're even then :-) [15:40] Cannibal he's a Polytheist [15:40] Henotheist [15:40] damocles sure d/l some files if you like [15:41] jharrel do youworship the Son? yes or no? [15:41] subtle, yet important [15:41] Yes [15:41] Acolyte, I know, but in a sense unlike the pagan polythism. [15:41] jhareel do you worship the Father? [15:41] aco: Which set of deity constructs do you cultists try to demand exist? And more to the point, does your "reason" exclude the existance of other deity constructs? [15:41] Yes [15:41] cannibal its more Masonic tho [15:41] Damocles 1. I ma not a cultist. 2. I am a Christian Theist. 3. I would put forward Trinitarian Theism [15:41] Acolyte, like I said, you probably need to address the question of authority first. [15:42] damocles yues it does eclude any other deities. [15:42] Cannibal I know [15:42] newbird (i13@199.185.50.135) joined #Apologetics. [15:42] Ac: Actually, not really. [15:42] Its been fun - take care and God Bless you all [15:42] orwell not really what? [15:42] Ac: Hebrews believed in Baal...he just wasn't THE god... [15:43] aco: Perhaps you should review what a cultist is and then rework your denials into something defendable. You admit ou believe in the occult, you admit you're a Christianic cultist. And yet you demand you're not a cultist. I c an't help but wonder at the dishonesty of people who try to pretend thay're rational. [15:43] Ac: Christianity does not exclude other deities. [15:43] Supreme deities, yes. [15:43] Damocles, try an epistemologically based approach, it is more fun. [15:43] jharrell, bye mate :) [15:43] orwell, some Jews did, it was called Apostasy, the diosl existed, but the True God only existed in reality [15:43] Orwell sure does [15:43] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) left irc: jharrell [15:43] newbird (i13@199.185.50.135) left #Apologetics. [15:43] Damacles how am I an occlutist simply because I am a theist? [15:43] aco: Ah, I see. Just as I expected. You try to pretend you have a rational excuse for believing in the Christanic pantheon while at the same time deny the existance of other deity constructs on the same grounds. Too cool. Yo u're Creationists, huh? [15:44] Orwell see the Council of Nicea, pretty clear [15:44] cann: I would rather stick with scientific method -- something that works every time. [15:44] Damocles no i am not a Creationist [15:44] brb [15:44] Damocles, epistemology is scientific, but have your fun your own way :) [15:44] Hmmm. [15:44] Then what is Satan? [15:45] aco: As I suggested, crack open a good old dictionary and see what a cultist is, what the occult is (they're two different things, by the way) and learn of your confusion. [15:45] Pretty powerful for a non-supernatural... [15:45] cann: Thanks! I will. [15:45] Action: Cannibal likes to watch debates with the religious of this world :) [15:46] Action: Cannibal wonders if this channel is shy of 4 letter words? [15:46] orwe: "Satan" is a Christian deity construct. It has evolved from many previous religions. It was originally someone who judged a person's "soul" against a white feather and, if the scales tipped toward the "soul," "Satan" escorted the individual into a level of "Hell." [15:46] orwell satn is not a deity in Christina Theology [15:46] mettle (dfyffe@port-1-22.jackson.zoomnet.net) joined #Apologetics. [15:46] Orwell supernatural does not = deity [15:47] :) [15:47] aco: "Satan" is a Christian god. Perhaps youre also laboring under a, um, theistic variation of what constitutes a deity. [15:47] Icarus (Marillion@198.190.226.24) left #apologetics. [15:47] Ah. [15:47] Misunderstanding of terms, then. [15:47] mettle (dfyffe@port-1-22.jackson.zoomnet.net) left #Apologetics. [15:47] Damocles please define deity [15:48] orw: Worse: Christanics confounded the Goddess Hel with their "Hell" myth and they also confounded Lucipher with Satan. Christanics are incapable of discerning where their "Satan" myth comes from and how entertainment about the myth factors into their beliefs. [15:48] Damocles please define deity [15:48] Acolyte, do you apply the same kind of rules on profanity as the ops do on #bible? If not what rules do you apply? [15:48] Damacles what is yoru source for this information? [15:48] cannibal depends [15:49] aco: Wouldn't you rather see what the usage of "deity" is in a dictionary rather than ask someone to define it? [15:49] Damocles which dictionary? [15:50] damocles a theological dictionary? [15:50] Acolyte, what does it depend on? [15:50] cannibal the context [15:50] aco: "Which dictionary." Amazing. My guess is that there are few Christanics who are willing to think rationally. [15:50] cannibal exclamation is not the same as blasphemy [15:50] HEL, in the mythology of the ancient Germanic and [15:50] Scandinavian races, the goddess of the lower world [15:50] of death. She was the daughter of Loki, the [15:50] personification of malice, and was hurled by the [15:50] All-Father into the depths of Niflheim, where she [15:50] ruled over those human beings who died of disease [15:50] or old age. [15:50] In the Middle Ages she became confounded with the [15:50] kingdom she ruled over, and eventually the double [15:50] conception was held to be synonymous with hell. [15:50] - The 1948 release of The American Peoples [15:50] Encyclopedia [15:52] Damocles I am a Christian, not a Christianic, just like you are not an ASSHOLEtheist, so intoher words cuts the pejorative terms [15:52] Acolyte, how do you feel about nick names like God, Jesys, Jehovah, YHWH, etc? [15:52] oopps [15:52] Jesus [15:52] damcoles and did Hebrews dereive their view fromteh Germans? [15:52] Cannibal don't push it [15:52] all: I'm off to download the weak attempts to justify the continued belief in the occult. Thanks for the input. I'll be sure to add the files to my growing archives. [15:52] Acolyte, I would not use the nicks myself [15:52] Damocles get soem education [15:52] canibal I woud hope youwold have more tolerance not to [15:52] Acolyte, I am interested in what you personally apply on this channel [15:53] aco: Yet another example of your lack of education. "Christanic" is a term that was coined by King James -- you know, the creator of the more race bigoted version of the classical Christanic mythologies. [15:53] cannibal it varies from op to op [15:53] Damocles oh please [15:53] damocles u ae using in a pejorative sense, which is the sence [15:54] Acolyte, are all your ops theists? [15:54] damocles u ae using in a pejorative sense, which is the point [15:54] cannibal yes [15:54] Cannibal they are all Nicean Theists as well [15:54] Acolyte, are they all also Christian? [15:54] aco: "Get some education..." My guess is you've never researched the origins of the Christanic mythologies. Ever read the Talmud? Toldoth? Or the Koran? As I suspected, you haven't. I su spect you're not ALLOWED to. [15:54] ok [15:54] Cannibal we require adherrance to the Nicean Creed [15:54] Damocles actual;ly yeah I have [15:55] Acolyte, is ProfG still the channel manager? [15:55] Domacles I am aphilosopher major with emphasis in Religious Epistemology and historical Theology so I am well aware of other Theistic texts [15:55] cannibal yes [15:55] aco: Great! Nicea! The council that had to VOTE on whether the so-called "Jesus" myth was a god or just the son of one. The council that had to VOTE on what myths were the words of gods and what words weren't. Too cool. [15:55] aco: Then you should have no excuse. [15:55] Acolyte, did he pass a message on to you from me some time ago? [15:56] Agape2 (alhuck@pm5-14.pacificnet.net) joined #Apologetics. [15:56] Action: Agape2 waves hello to everyone on this Channel, and hope that it is well with your souls! [15:56] Damocles the Arian conroversy had nothing to do with the histority of Ejsus but rather his ontological status [15:56] cannibal I think so [15:56] Acolyte, ok. [15:57] Damcoles oh excuse me, if I don't agree with you then I must bne all messe dup is that it? kinda flase bifurcaiton there [15:57] hulo agape2 [15:57] Action: Agape2 waves hello to everyone on this Channel, and hope that it is well with your souls! [15:57] all: I'm going to go get those files. Hopefully they'll be as amusing as those attempting to justify their occultism. I can be found at frice@stbbs.com and on the #holysmoke channel if anyone wants to go back, educate themselv es a little, then resume their excuses. [15:57] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics. [15:57] Damocles, honestly, you can have much more fun with epistemology :) [15:57] damocles you are viewing history with an erroneous set of presuppositions....all councils were put together to deal with some form of heresy (socician or otherwise) [15:57] whoa this is not a God is Love kinda place no doubt [15:57] lol [15:57] Action: Agape2 desires that All will come to know the Gift of God...which is eternal Life! [15:57] Action: Agape2 waves good-bye to All praying that we will all come to the Knowledge of the Fullness of God's LOVE! Keep the Faith! TODDLES! [15:57] Agape2 (alhuck@pm5-14.pacificnet.net) left #Apologetics. [15:58] bye damocles ....have fun [15:58] roy he has no clue, he has not read the primary sources, he prolly just read snipts from the www and cut and pasted them [15:58] roy if he goes to the www, he will be in for a real education [15:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [15:59] roy Atheists like some theists have a real hard time seeing the opponant view as a rational alternative, or that the ppl are human in any real sense, they are always stupid or this or that [15:59] Roy it is a way they disaccoiate themselves form what they formerly believed, it justifies jtheir choice psychologically [15:59] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [16:00] hello [16:00] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [16:00] Hello, creation. [16:00] heya [16:00] thanks :) [16:00] Acolyte, the way you approach a person makes a great deal of difference don't you think? [16:00] hello orwell [16:01] ic acol...i was gone but came back to be enlighted by cannibals heroic attempts at philosophy [16:01] cannibal true but some ppl are so bitter and so sure that someone who is a theist for example will have NO credibility at all in their eyes, so I am viewed by Damocles and others as ipso facto being stupid, knowing only what my f aith teaches, doing what I [16:02] roy-, I have not made any philosophical observations. [16:02] roy where r u [16:02] acolyte what happened to our Mormon friend? [16:02] cannibal ever? ;) [16:02] roy he left [16:02] Acolyte, not on this channel ;) [16:02] roy his arguments fisseld on the early church [16:03] roy I let cannibal hound him for a while, (the enemy of my enemy is my freind) [16:03] Acolyte, actually I was attempting to gain some information, but he was not well informed enough about Mormonism to supply it. [16:04] canibal true [16:04] cannibal what specifically? [16:05] brb [16:05] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Leaving [16:05] Action: Cannibal will let that remain my own secret for the now :) [16:05] roy-, are you xian? [16:05] ic atheism not as a denial of logic...for all see cleary that there is a God by the things that He made(Romans), but as a pushing away or suppressing down the truth they know....they say we will have no God to rule over us [16:05] im in central Mississippi aolyte..yourself? [16:06] cannibal: I think that answers the question :) [16:07] Action: creation is reminded by roy that he has to go read William Paley's "Natural Theology" [16:07] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) joined #apologetics. [16:07] I'm back! [16:07] so we see :) [16:08] Well, that was diappointing. I reviewed some of the web pages for this channel and learned that people are trying to use the classical Christanic mythologies to justify their belief in the occult. That's little different than cracking open a Wonder Woman comic book and demanding Wonder Woman exists, you know. [16:08] i should apologize to pmantis...in my going in and out ....i thought he was the one denying the unity of God [16:09] whooo hooo. [16:09] I had hoped for a RATIONAL excuse. [16:09] Damocles: You have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously didnt go to the right web page. [16:09] st_aidan (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [16:09] Mode change '+o st_aidan ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [16:09] yes i am cannibal...yourself? [16:09] Nick change: st_aidan -> Acolyte [16:09] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) left irc: Ping timeout for Cannibal[slip54.vianet.net.au] [16:09] creation: He's saying that y'all can't really convince him with the Bible. [16:10] crea: Hang on... Let me check the URL. [16:10] crea http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.htm [16:10] crea: Did I write it down wrong? [16:10] Orwell: I really can't convince anyone :) [16:10] yes you did [16:11] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [16:11] html [16:11] Damocles: Did you read anything? Did you go to the Links? If so, what did you read and what links? [16:11] orw: I don't need to be convinced... I'm looking to see where the "rational" demand comes into the justification of deity beliefs. [16:11] roy-, time out problem :( [16:11] Damocles: Ah. [16:11] Damocles: What makes a deity belief irrational? [16:11] roy-, what was your question? [16:11] Damocles: I agree, "rational theism" is an obvious oxymoron. [16:11] crea: I saw a lot of quotes from the classical Christanic mythologies. I had hoped for something rational, not anonymous forgeries. Alas. [16:12] Orwell: ???? [16:12] Considering that theism requires faith. [16:12] Creation Icarus has some kewl links to Planting and others [16:12] creatin Plantinga etc [16:12] And faith is fundamentally irrational. [16:12] crea: What makes deity beliefs irrational? How about the lack of evidence for the existance of deity constructs outside of the imagination? [16:12] Acolyte: yeah, that is what I saw. I guess Damocles must have missed it. [16:13] Damocles: Prove to me that a belief in the existance of God is one that requires evidence in order ot be rational. [16:13] orwel: Thanks for your support. I find little problem with believers in the occult admitting that they do so out of faith. When I see someone pretend thay believe in deity constructs out of rationality, then I h ave to wonder who they're trying to fool. [16:13] deity constructs sound like fun :) [16:13] damcoles there are a number of essays linekd to that page frm world renouned Philosophers, you shuld have done yourself a favor and read some of them [16:13] orwell bs [16:13] cannibal i asked if you were christian also [16:13] Action: creation agrees with acolyte [16:13] acolyte: Oh"? [16:13] ray he's an atheist [16:13] orwell yes, faith is not fiedism for one [16:13] acolyte: Mind elaborating? [16:14] orwell fideism even [16:14] roy-, no, I am atheist. I thought that was clear from many comments I have made. [16:14] crea: Do the same: Prove to me that the belief in invisible pink elephants needs evidence to be considered rational. [16:14] orwell do you know the difference between trust and fideism? [16:14] Damcolcles easy, its not a foundational belief [16:14] acolyte: Yes. [16:14] cannibal ...sorry ...i was gone for awhile [16:14] "Foundational" belief? [16:14] aco: Philosophers... No, I was looking for evidence for the existance of deity constructs, not statements of belief in the occult. [16:14] roy-, that's ok mate :) [16:15] Damocles: The belief in a pink elephant isn't a proper basic belief and is not necessary for rationality. [16:15] \orweel we hold to trust/faith, not to fideism [16:15] orwell are you familair with Epistemological Foundationalism? [16:15] Acolyte: Vaguely. [16:16] Damocles, are not rational arguments evidence? besides,you need to show that evidentialism is the method by which we measure the rationality fo beleifs. which you have yet to do [16:16] aco: "foundational belief..." It's an unevidenced claim just like claims of deity constructs. There is no difference between the belief in invisible pink elephants and invisible deities. [16:16] creation, what if the invisible etc... possesses attributes such as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, aseity, .... [16:16] orwell some beleifs are basci to a structure [16:16] crea: Certainly it is. Invisible pink elephants aren't evidenced. Deity constructs aren't evidenced. They are equally irrational. [16:16] Ah. [16:16] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca13-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #Apologetics. [16:17] PMantis (wwiese@irv-ca13-10.ix.netcom.com) left #Apologetics. [16:17] aco: I'm _waiting_ for a rational argument for the existance of deity constructs. That requires evidence, not statements of occult beliefs. [16:17] Damcoles sure, I don't hold to pink elepahnts, sho me how my contructs is not rational [16:17] damocles do you have evidence for logic? [16:17] damocles not all beleifs need evidence to be held as rrational [16:17] Damocles: The belief in pink elephants is not a prerequisite to knowledge. [16:17] As repeatability is to science. [16:17] acolyte: woo woo... [16:17] Cannibal: A rose by any other name is still a rose. [16:17] aco: You're now trying to demand that physical reality isn't everything. That's a positive claim on your part. Have any evidence for that claim? [16:18] Acolyte, what exactly do you conceive logic to be? [16:18] damcoles, what is the ontological referent for logic in your system? [16:18] Damocles sure, the laws of logic [16:18] cannibal oh you don't know by now? [16:18] creation, is Allah the same as your God then? [16:18] acolyte: so why is NOT believing in deity constructs irrational? [16:18] Acolyte, it is always worth while to define your terms if you can. [16:18] Cannibal: The concept is not the same as my concept. [16:19] aco: Such as the belief in aliens in flying saucers. Does your illogic then demand that all the books written about flying saucers are rational? [16:19] It's simply not believing in things that can not be sensed. [16:19] Damocles why do you look for proofs on a web page for existence of God...look at yourself and round about you at the things that are made...the problem isnot that its illogical that there was no creator but God says that which is kn own about God can be clearly seen..your trouble is your suppress the truth in unrighteousness [16:19] orweel no bassif or logic, actually they are non-rational, htey lack a paradigm that provides for rationality [16:19] orwel can you sense ideas? ge guess they don't exist, catagory fallacy [16:19] creation, does that mean that many gods can form the basis for rationality as you conceive it to be? [16:19] Acolyte: Huh? I sense ideas fine. [16:19] Cannibal: simply put, no [16:19] going once... [16:19] going twice... [16:19] all: Thanks for playing. As usual the side of reason wins. [16:19] Damocles (frice@206.126.158.210) left #apologetics. [16:19] damcocles surely UFO's are not the issyue here, are UFO material or formal? [16:20] orweel when did you SMELL an IDEA last? [16:20] Acolyte: Is smell the only idea? [16:20] er [16:20] xcuse me [16:20] the only sense? [16:20] Is taste? [16:20] Is touch? [16:20] Is sight? [16:20] creation, what exactly is required for a god to supply the basis of rationality (as you see rationality). [16:20] Cannibal: ONe that IS rational? [16:20] orwell that is not what I asked [16:20] orweel can you SENSE an idea? NO, you don't SEE THEM, you don't SMELL THEM or taste them ect [16:21] creation, is that a deliberate circular statement, or just an error on your part? [16:21] orwell you THINK them, they are formal, not material [16:21] acolyte: I perceive them. End of story. [16:21] You assume our reasoning ability is unbiased creation....the bible says it is not [16:21] brb [16:21] Aco: you still haven't answered MY question. [16:21] creation, which is prior (logically speaking) rationality or deity? [16:21] Aco: Why is nonbelief irrational? [16:22] orwell which is? [16:22] oops i meant cannibal...sorry creation [16:22] cannibal they are eternal [16:22] Cannibal: both are one and the same. [16:22] Acolyte, rationality is eternal? [16:22] they are both eternal cannibal [16:22] orwell I answered that already [16:22] creation, rationality is god? [16:22] cannibal because Truth is eternal [16:23] *orweel no bassif or logic, actually they are non-rational, htey lack a paradigm that provides for rationality [16:23] Acolyte, the eternity of truth \is a foundational assumption? [16:23] oops...shoulda been *acolyte... [16:23] No basis or logic? [16:23] Cannibal: Was there a time when truth did not exist? [16:23] Scientific method. [16:23] Orwell they are non-rational paradigms on their OWN, in Christian system they are contradictory, they deny the necessary preconditions for reason, hence they make knowldge impossible [16:24] creation, was there a time when time did not exist? [16:24] Acolyte: How so? [16:24] orwell Atheisttic naturalism makes science impossible [16:24] aco: How so? [16:24] Cannibal: Answer the question. [16:24] Cannibal: It is quite simple. [16:24] creation, you answer mine [16:24] orweel how does one groudn the assumptions of science? say in the principle of induction? how does one jusify the prin of inductin based on expereince? uou can't do it [16:24] whoa... [16:25] turn the light on, man... [16:25] Cannibla sure, time was created [16:25] creation, is your god time bound? [16:25] Cannibal: No [16:25] Cannibal is truth time bound? [16:25] Cannibal: He is atemporal [16:25] Acolyte: You can ground them in many things. The most basic is that the physical universe is guided by a set of fundamental forces or laws. [16:26] why should a creator be bound by his creation cannibal? [16:26] creation, truth may not be spoken of outside of the confines of the proper objects of human investigation. [16:26] orweel I knwo that , but those laws are based on the sci method which is base don the principle of indiction, how do you justify the principle of induction? [16:26] Cannibal: So you need humans for there to be truthy??? [16:26] truthy???? heheheh [16:26] roy-, the question was for a purpose. [16:26] Cannibal: So, without humans 2 + 2=4 would not be true?? [16:26] cannibal why would anyone trust the conclusion of a computer tha had no design? [16:27] creation, for you (a human) to discuss truth you need humans :) [16:27] cannibal why trust your brain? [16:27] canibal circualr argument [16:27] Acolyte: What is your definition of "the principle of induction?" [16:27] Cannibal: For the DISCUSSION of truth. Not the existance there of. [16:27] cannibal so was therea time when there was no truth? [16:27] creation, you would not know 2 + 2 = 4 if there were no humans. [16:27] Cannibal: it doesn't depend on my knowing. [16:27] orwell the standard one that Hume discusses try reading Hume on it [16:27] creation excellent [16:28] creation, how do you know that? [16:28] good point creation [16:28] Acolyte: Just tell me your interpretation. [16:28] orwell hold on a sec [16:28] creation, isn't it an assumption on your part? [16:28] Cannibal: Did 2+2=4 when I didn't exist? [16:28] orwell the BRB someo at the door [16:29] creation, that is not the question :) [16:29] Cannibal: Just answer it and you will see my point. [16:29] creation, how do YOU know that 2 + 2 = 4. [16:29] Cannibal: hmmmmm, grade school lesson. 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. [16:30] creation, how do YOPU know that that is always true? [16:30] Cannibal: Is there a time that you know of that 2+2=4 is not true? [16:31] creation: When everyone believes it is 5. [16:31] creation, my point is that in your experience it is evidence (grade school apples) that teaches you that 2 + 2 = 4. [16:31] hey I am eating, brb in a few miniutes [16:31] Orwell: Does the belief in something make it true? [16:31] creation: This is right up my ally...read 1984 [16:31] truth exists before we come into cognicant contact with it cannibal... [16:31] cannibal judgements are a priori btw [16:31] BRB [16:32] creation: Ask yourself that. [16:32] roy-, that my friend is an assumption. [16:32] Orwell: ask myself what? [16:32] Acolyte, category fallacy are too :) [16:32] Orwell: you wrote 1984? [16:33] Orwell: It is a logical assumption. Show that assumption to be falty. [16:33] cannibal, was there a time when there was no truth? yes or no? [16:33] creation: uh. [16:33] creation: My namesake did :-D [16:33] you presume that because truth is eterenal that we dont have to be taught it...where do you get that presupposition [16:33] oops eternal [16:34] roy we don't say that [16:34] roy the basis or structure of logix is in our heards, beaus it is in ALL Reality, rocks are not non-rocks at the same time [16:34] creation: Positive statement. Need evidence. [16:34] Acolyte, possibly, there was a time (grin) when time started. Theyre may be no truth now. [16:35] i am eating brb [16:35] im not talking about truth of god which all men know acolyte...but about facts of his creation...we have to learn to talk and understand the language before we can read and listen ...so the same with math truths [16:35] Orwell: Ok, answer the question, was there a time when there was no truth? [16:35] Acolyte, if by truth you mean a proposition that is a tautology, perhaps such has existed for all of time. [16:36] creation: I have no idea. [16:36] Ecc 8 17 [16:36] ;-) [16:36] roy god knew before [16:37] cannibal Truth Exists, was that ever false? [16:37] onevoice (AZhawk@dd07-095.compuserve.com) joined #apologetics. [16:37] creation, does your knowledge of "truth" come from your experience, teaching, and authorty that you accept? [16:37] Orwell: You don't know? [16:37] creation: Of course not. Neither do you, really. [16:37] Acolyte, Time exists has that ever been false? [16:38] Canibal yes [16:38] Orwell: yes, I do. [16:38] Acolyte, yes too [16:38] cannial knowledge comes form the mnd, not experience [16:38] creation: It makes life easier if we assume the answer to be yess. [16:38] Cannibla so truth is timebound? [16:38] Orwell: No assumption. [16:38] creation: Bah. [16:38] Orwll: Bah [16:38] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) left irc: Is there no beauty in truth? [16:39] my mother was my mother before i could say mama....but the actual learning of the truth to us humans came through other humans ...ie.my mother [16:39] bye orwell [16:39] perhaps :) [16:39] Acolyte, our ability of know truth is time bound. [16:39] Cannibal: How does truth depend on our knowing. [16:39] a point of clarification know, truth, etc are used by me with a meaning that is close to the word utility. [16:40] Cannibal: so, if you can't use it it isn't truth, know, etc? [16:40] truth is a noun, cann [16:40] Cannibal: Please elaborate. [16:40] Acolyte, you are assuming that truth has an exustence of its own. [16:40] Cannibal: That is right. [16:41] cannibal ideas don't [16:41] canibal ideas come from thinkers, if I hav an eternal idea, I have to have an eternal thinker to think it [16:41] Acolyte, is that a statement or a question? [16:41] cannibal what happens when your pragmatism does not work? is it true then? [16:41] cannabal a statement [16:41] Acolyte, has it ever not worked? [16:42] Acolyte, lets clarify this. Do ideas have an independent existence? [16:43] cannibal no [16:43] Acolyte, do they depend on God? [16:43] cannibal everything depends on god [16:43] ok [16:43] DCline (DCline@dial15.vonl.com) joined #Apologetics. [16:43] cannibal otherwise turht is a mere convention [16:44] truth even [16:44] Hi all:) [16:44] hello DCline [16:44] hello dcline [16:44] Any topic today? [16:45] Exactly what is "Rational Theism?" [16:45] Christianity for one. [16:45] Ah...now you're talking:) [16:46] Cannibal: you there? [16:46] cannibal the bible says you see clearly that what is known about God is cleary seen through his creation..dont you think the beauty around you is someones idea? [16:47] Is there a split? [16:47] Cannibal (philcs@slip54.vianet.net.au) left irc: Ping timeout for Cannibal[slip54.vianet.net.au] ============================================================= [22:41] maya (maya@dial20.e-tex.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:41] what'd ya suppose is the deal with Shost's [22:42] what happened newsong? [22:42] ouch! [22:42] I think he's playing Doom [22:42] yes I am [22:42] major....netsplit [22:43] oh brother....I thought he was a jewell [22:43] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:43] (now that's sarcasm) [22:43] hello [22:43] cani...hello [22:43] hi cani.. [22:44] any topic going on? [22:44] nope.....Perg..is lost somewhere [22:45] not heard from Shost's... [22:45] i have a theological question... [22:45] one or both of us has major lag i think [22:45] maybe in Perg atory [22:45] ok..... [22:45] yes cani [22:45] ohh.....maya...b careful....Perg. is pretty sensitive [22:45] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-179.netzone.com) left irc: [22:46] sorry... only kidding [22:46] :} [22:46] told ya [22:46] he may be back..... [22:46] Isn't there an inherent conflict between God's omnipotence and His need for worship? [22:46] He liked my chocolate cake [22:46] Are they not incompatible? [22:46] the only conflict is the human creation of the concepts of omnipotence and worship [22:46] well....don't lay a statement like that on us....and then expect me to jump in without figuring out what prompted such a statement [22:47] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) got netsplit. [22:47] sorry... i am bad about cutting gordian knots... [22:47] It was a question put to me...now I put it to you... no hostility intended [22:48] none occured to me [22:48] how did you answer, cani? [22:48] Ok I refine my question.... isn't there a conflict between the human concept of worship and the human conception of omnipotence? [22:49] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) returned to #Apologetics. [22:49] Pergolesi (jeffboro@phx-ip-179.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:49] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) left #apologetics. [22:49] I was unable to answer... [22:50] hello newsong [22:50] But the question seems difficult to me... [22:50] to me, omnipotence implies total completeness, without needs or even the capability to want... [22:50] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) joined #apologetics. [22:50] Cassidy (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-05.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:50] In my opinion..... all dualistic concepts of god... and the traits attrributed to god are meaningless. like asking .. what would happen if on fell off the earth would it be into water... or into fire.? [22:50] Mode change '+o Cassidy ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [22:50] kinda like when Jesus comes back again...all the Christians will just...disappear!!! [22:51] hello newsong [22:51] someone said, "God created man in His own image.... and Man has been returning the favor ever since.." [22:51] maya...cani...pergo... [22:51] I knew you'd come back for chocolate cake...Perg... [22:51] maya...meaningless...or just unanswerable? [22:52] yes, after I finished lagging :) [22:53] for me the question is meaningless because the idea or concept of god as a being or divine entity, separate from anything... is an anthropomorphic creation of the human mind. [22:53] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cani[ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com] [22:53] hello Perg..... [22:53] I said...I knew you'd be back for chocolate cake and coffee [22:53] hello [22:54] maya....you need 50c for coffee??? [22:54] maya why do you believe that the concept of god is an anthropomorphic creation of man [22:54] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:54] maya..."for you"? I always wonder when that term is used these days. For me, it is not. Are both our systems equally valid? Or do we proceed to attempt to give evidence respectivly? [22:55] because I believe that the Infinite, Divine Spirit is none other that Infinite Consciousness.... [22:55] oh brother..................... [22:55] Shostakov (shoubeck@pm095-13.dialip.mich.net) left irc: Ping timeout for Shostakov[pm095-13.dialip.mich.net] [22:55] Action: newsong is rolling on the floor laughing at the entertainment [22:55] so there is no entity beyond man? [22:56] good response, newsong.. [22:56] Doesn't consciousness imply a progression of thought, though? [22:56] maya...now one might respond that, if our belief is a human construct, then THAT is just as much a human construct. [22:56] even man is not a separate entity [22:57] And how can an all-knowing consciousness have any progression of thought? If it is already complete in EVERY way? [22:57] maya...interesting. How are we "united"? [22:57] yes, cassidy... we are limlited to finite words and concepts here.... so making sense of this is not likely [22:57] Apolobot...must be busted!! [22:57] we are united because we are all a manifestation of One spirit.. or Infinite consciousness. [22:58] quit freaking bot! [22:58] maybe it fell on the floor too, newsong [22:58] Perg...did you break the bot??? [22:58] hehehehehe maya...good line [22:59] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:59] do this finite language allow us to know *anything* about god/conciousness? obviously it has allowed you to have negative knowledge about the metaphysical "realm"...why not positive?? [22:59] do you offer any evidence of this claim? [22:59] Action: Pergolesi gave the Bot chocolate cake and coffee [22:59] hehehehe...Perg....I like you [23:00] Cani (torque@ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cani[ix-spo-wa1-16.ix.netcom.com] [23:00] But, of course, in the sense of Paul's writing what is real and eternal is not what we see with our eyes.... [23:00] actually no finite language can describe this... It is Intuitive knowledge or a state of awakeness.... it is more an experience or a state of being than a body of knowledge that can be passed on [23:00] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [23:01] maya....you deny our claims about god as meaningless...but somehow your claims are exempt from the rules that negated ours. How does that work?>?? [23:01] right... the unseen is eternal... or infinite [23:01] of course not...no finite language can describe the state that you speak of..... maya [23:01] no human tongue can attempt to describe or ascribe who God is..... [23:01] No... I understand that my descriptions are also meaningless... but ... what does one do when we are limited to words? [23:01] Deep thoughts by Jack Handy: I think that ping timeouts are th [23:02] oops! [23:02] maya....perhaps......it could be called....Speaking on Tongues [23:02] Action: Pergolesi 's dog just attacked him [23:03] For one who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men but to God....for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the Holy Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things not obvious to the understanding [23:03] I Cor 14:2 [23:03] maya...OH! yours are meaningless too. yet, you spoke of this universal consciousness as if it had meaning! please, if these things are meaningless, why is it we continue to entertain them as if they weren't?? [23:04] pray [23:04] I can only say i "intuit" this.... there is no proof, no authority. and no validification unless one experiences it one's self [23:05] Perg....great line [23:06] pray for what perg? [23:06] insight, wisdom [23:07] maya....I can name 10 people off the top of my head that would clain that there is also no way to verify the Christian paradigm. They ALSO claim an "intuition" or innate/divine knowledge of God . What makes yours more credible? [23:07] the universal consciouness does not have meaning...cass. [23:07] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) joined #apologetics. [23:07] does that bot work yet Perg??? [23:07] hello J [23:07] good evening all [23:07] Im not trying to sell anything.... Its just my paradigm [23:07] hey jh! [23:07] ok...long hand.....here it is Eph 1 17 [23:09] For I always pray the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, that He may grant you a spirit of wisdom and revelation - of insight ito mysteries and secrets - in the deep and intimate knowledge of Him... [23:09] finally Apolo [23:10] bot is experiencing chocolate lag [23:10] What is the topic? [23:10] :-) [23:10] maya....I know your not. however, I am interested to know why you feel your intuitive knowledge of God/consciousness is any more credible or trustworthy than the next guy. [23:10] but Perg....it wasn't even Hershey's chocolate.... [23:10] we are talking about the limits of knowledge and the relativity of conscious experience...I think? [23:11] Newsong: it was Ghirardelli Chocolate...the bot had no chance [23:11] ok...here's Eph 1:18....long hand...amplified bible [23:12] I have been an ordained minister for forty years... have three degrees in theology.... and yet... when I began to find the mystical teachings of the orient... i sensed that I was closer to truth... [23:13] By having the eyes of your heart flooded with light so that you can know and understand the hope to which He has called you and how rich is His glorious inheritance in the saints..His set-apart ones [23:14] Maya: How so? [23:14] maya....40 years....how sad...it is obvious you never knew Jesus.... [23:15] Maya: perhaps you grew to understand God a way different from Western culture [23:15] I cannot really explain........ and newsense...please dont judge what you know nothing about. [23:15] maya...I sensed I was close to truth when I dropped a hit of purple micro-dot (LSD) and every time I changed denominations. Feelings of truth come and go as the seasons. [23:15] (pssssttt....Perg...Ghirardelli chocolate..that explains it.....) [23:15] Maya: as we seek to understand it is helpful to understand that Jesus was a person of the orient not of the west [23:16] Maya: but the God of the Jews and of Christians claims sole possession of a man's loyalty. It must be either true or false. [23:16] maya....I think your feeling of truth may be nothing mmore than a conditional affect of your new studies. I've seen it happen to Christians too (as Im sure you also have). [23:16] yes... and I think he was what we call a mystic... but since his followers are not.... he is not readily understood [23:16] a mystic? [23:16] new studies.... I have been pursuing this for over 20 years... [23:16] yes... one who intuits or knows (directly) that "the father and I are one" [23:16] even mystical devotion is no more than fat on the bones of reason. [23:17] reason is not a good tool of the spirit [23:17] ok....long hand.....For while Jews (demandingly) ask for signs and miracles and Greeks pursue philosophy and wisdom... We preach Christ, the Messiah, crucified, which to the Jews is a scandal and an offensive stumblinb block..and to the Gentiles [23:17] Maya: I wouldn't use the word "mystic" , for some it carries connotations that I would not apply to Jesus. Perhaps "deeply spiritual" - in a way that many f ail to recognize? [23:17] .....Gentiles...it is unphilosophical nonsense.... [23:17] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) left #apologetics. [23:17] Mystic mean only the realization of oneness. [23:18] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.27) joined #apologetics. [23:18] re newsong [23:18] yo Bon......... [23:18] Maya: I believe that we can not hardly perceive the complexity of God and His Spirit, yet we can claim to have some insight. [23:18] A falling out from one system and a fresh introduction to another is a sure recipe for such mystical surity. Also, the mystical approach is sooooo much easier! No more questions. just soft abandonment in one direction. [23:18] the complexity cannot be "perceived" complexity is created by the confusion and logc of the human mind [23:18] Thanks you Jesus....for I will see you one day...face to face!!!! [23:18] Spirit is simple.. It is the all [23:18] bot on chocolate again!!!!! [23:18] ack bot freaking again [23:18] good crayzee bot [23:18] quick...feed the bot a coke!!!! [23:18] trix are for kids, silly bot [23:18] hehehe [23:18] will dr pepper do? [23:19] do it long hand Perg.... [23:19] Action: Bon does the lumber mil shuffle [23:19] bon...lumber mil....you in lumber???? [23:19] I realize my views create more heat than light... but how does rational logic etc. communicate the taste of .. say, an orange? [23:19] newsong .. um no :) but I worked in a mill one summer! [23:19] 1 Cor 13 12 Perg paraphrase...we see in a mirror dimly---but we do see and can know enough to place faith in the Almighty God [23:19] without a standard of logic, the word "confusion" in unintelligable. How is it that you identify your feelings of trust and truth for your system if not by a mental ccatagories that can be trus ted as reliable?? [23:19] Amen Bot [23:19] ....oh...bon i'm a salesmen for a building trade wholesaler...that's why I asked [23:19] Maya: May I ask - what part of oriental philosophy has appealed to you? [23:19] Logic is an inadequate tool for knowing spirit.... [23:19] aaah. [23:19] Everything appeals to Maya....except Jesus [23:19] Newsong: Awfully judgemental aren't we? [23:19] finlly...the coke did it...(or was it the Dr Pepper) [23:20] hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....awfully? [23:20] I also have been enriched by Oriental philosophy, but it has deepened my understanding of God, instead of focusing on creation [23:20] :) [23:20] is not creation an expression of "god"? [23:20] God created!!! [23:20] Yes, but often men worship the creation instead of the creator. [23:21] yep [23:21] maya...and spirit is an inadequite tool for knowing period. Maya....at some point you stood at the wall of reason....and just decided to go over it. I wonder at your purposes for even discussing metaphysics of ANY kind anymore. I wonder. [23:21] good point Perg [23:21] Is not creation the unfolding of spirit... the creation of the idea of a separate god is the worship of idols [23:21] maya...what church were you a pastor of? [23:21] concepts can be idols too [23:21] Action: newsong high 5's Perg. [23:22] 1st church of the Refrigerator [23:22] may I ask why you ask? [23:22] new...old joke. [23:22] Concepts can be idols, we must turn our focus to God (and not put God in a convenient box) [23:22] cass...but the shoe fits [23:22] but the concept of god is a box [23:23] Newsong: What's with the attitude? [23:23] for whom? [23:23] maya...just interest. background take the mundaneness out of a purely text based conversation. Im not gonna contact them or anything!!! ;) [23:23] jharrell...there you go again.... [23:23] a concept is reducing the infinite down to a maneageable box... so we can have understanding and control [23:23] newsong...it's"church of the frigidare" [23:23] ok...cass....good point [23:23] I have been retired for two years... [23:24] thank God!!!! [23:24] cassidy is the modern day campfire. [23:24] newsong hehe [23:24] bon :) [23:24] so maya, how do we let God be God, not what we want [23:24] Bon is like asprin without the severe stomach upset!! [23:24] Cassidy is a better man than I never was [23:25] ( I hope) [23:25] Action: Cassidy is half the man you ever weren't...?!? (hmmmmm...) [23:25] Cassidy is a lot like elvis, minus the drug problem [23:25] Im only saying that we have intuited the Infinite spirit within... but have projected it outward... belived we are separate from it... and called it "God>" [23:25] and he cant sing too well [23:26] God is a HIM..... [23:26] the infinite spirit within? [23:26] God is a Person [23:26] god is aperson? [23:26] God is the Father...God the Son...God the Holy Spirit [23:26] aaaaah the trinity :) [23:26] Basic Christian Doctrine....(maybe that's the problem) [23:26] within is an awkward word.... actually there is not in or out with the spirit [23:26] Bon is popular among alcoholics, insomniacs, truck-drivers, and those with a tendency toward deviant social behavior. [23:26] Action: Bon believes in the trinity but thinks God is a LITTLE bit more complicated than that :) [23:27] cassidy unfortunately that is true %-) [23:27] oooof~ [23:27] Maya, I think that we are much alike in our thought regarding the lack of understanding we can have of a spiritual God [23:27] But, do you believe that God has revealed Himself to man at all? [23:27] I would agree with that.. but dont think God is something inside of me.. if he is how in the heck wuz he talking at Abraham? :) [23:27] Yes... understanding is not an adequate tool. [23:27] yes................thru Jesus [23:28] newsong yuppa! [23:28] and His Word! [23:28] Jesus....The Son of God.....Emmanuel....God with US [23:28] and the Prophets [23:28] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) left irc: jharrell [23:28] Religious literature is dualistic... [23:28] The two errors: Reason can obtain all that is to be known of the eternal......and reason can obtain none. [23:28] and the LAW! [23:28] The Prophets spoke of Jesus..... [23:29] reason cannot grasp the Infinite..... so the mind tries to reduce it to something one can grasp [23:29] yes, but God allows the dual duel until He should see fit to overcome...and He will [23:30] But of course....we do not approach God thru reason.... we approach Him thru Faith!!!!! [23:30] I am acquainted with all the traditional Christian myths and traditions.. [23:30] hehe [23:30] maya...you were the pastor...right... [23:30] they are more useful for the conventional religious mind. [23:30] Hebrews 11:6....long hand...amplified [23:30] what good would it be if God revealed more than we could understand...instead he has spoken through man to reveal his nature (the best we can understand it) [23:31] what i am sayin is not "useful" [23:31] But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him... [23:31] I have faith in the Infinite... but not in a concept of "God" [23:31] For whoever would come near to God must necessarily believe that God exists and that He is the Rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him out... [23:31] maya...I believe in innate knowledge. I believe we have a concept of the eternal...whatever the particular subject be. Else, we would be utterly unable to grasp even negative knowledge, such as "it (the eternal) cannot be grasped". Do you see? we must have a concept of a thing to even deny it, or aspects about it. [23:32] and **WHO** is Infinite??? [23:32] only One Newsong :) [23:32] Who is your faith in Maya???? [23:32] concepts are only maps, cass... they point... but the map must not be confused with the territory it represents... [23:33] God...is God....the opposite of God is NOT negative.... [23:34] that is one of the weakness of christianity today... is that believers worship their concepts instead of knowing spirit [23:34] No ....I do not worship a Concept...I worship the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords [23:34] the rational western mind cannot really understand that [23:34] I Worship Jesus.....He is Alive.. [23:36] ,maya...if the "map" is so wholly transcendant, how do you know it exists? What do you have if not concepts? These concepts are not in your liver or toe...they are in your mind. If our mind is on this side of the wall and the eternal is on the other...how is it that YOU have a concept that identifies it as one thing (the eternal conscousness) and Not another (the God of Scripture)???? [23:36] Well....my Lord is not a concept...I just talked with Him......how does a concept talk??? [23:38] maya...west makes wrong? [23:38] How do you talk with your God Maya??? [23:39] wow [23:39] cmon bot [23:40] hey...Perg...bot was doing better...needs another Coke/Dr. Pepper [23:40] maya (maya@dial20.e-tex.com) got netsplit. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_13_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank