>From: "zuuum"

[ . . . ]

>But, having studied the Bible for many years, I guess I will drop my tidbit
>into the pot. How to become a Christian version 1.01 or How to become a
>Paulinist?

[ . . . ]

Much "Paul" turns out to be Jesus's doctrine.
E. P.

So... when you read, Jesus said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall go into
all the world."..... insert [this gospel under construction.. waiting for
Pauline epistles]

??

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in rec.food.cooking

Snip of another bunch of religous crap that doesn't belong in
this food newsgroup.

Hey Chung King, why don't you quit cross posting your religous
posts to this food group? Your certainly welcome to post them
just do it in the proper forum.


--
BigDog,
To E-mail me, you know what to do.

>From: "zuuum"

>So... when you read, Jesus said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall go into
>all the world."..... insert [this gospel under construction.. waiting for
>Pauline epistles]

You're quoting a Gnostic book? Heh . . .

My original statement was that much of Paul's statements originate in what
Jesus said. You've not written anything that would falsify what I wrote.
E. P.

>From: "zuuum"

>So... when you read, Jesus said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall go into
>all the world."..... insert [this gospel under construction.. waiting for
>Pauline epistles]

You're quoting a Gnostic book? Heh . . .

My original statement was that much of Paul's statements originate in what
Jesus said. You've not written anything that would falsify what I wrote.
E. P.

(Julian9EHP) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Bob (this one)"
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to disprove God.
> >> _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
> >>
> >> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
> >> scientists and statesmen. ;-)
> >
> >They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than yours.
>
> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that there is no
> God.
>
> >>>I think not.
> >>>A god is a natural invention of our specie. It was the easy way out.
> >>
> >> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism -- do
> not
> >> believe in a god.
> >
> >Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a natural
> >invention of our specie[s]."
>
> You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word natural means.
>
> "Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were overgeneralizing.
>
> >> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began in the long
> time
> >> before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
> >
> >Non sequitur.
>
> No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . " Religious people
> have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is not easy -- but then, life is
> not easy.
>
> >>>Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this life.
> >>
> >> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed
> in an
> >> afterlife.
> >
> >Still, no proof of anything.
>
> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy. Some faith
> is true, but even the true faith is not easy.
>
> >>>By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
> >>
> >> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife. Ancient
> >> Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.
> >>
> >> You make too many assumptions.
> >
> >And, still no proof.
>
> Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I have not
> sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved false.
>
> >>>So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad number of ways -
> >>>take your pick - can any one be right?) our faults and the way to overcome
> >>>them - all this based on reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
> >>
> >> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics. The
> Greco-Roman
> >> pantheon seems to have taken a long path.
>
> >Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
> >modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't have
> >a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning source of
> >our modern ethical tenets?
>
> No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey were not
> ethical. And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the Spartans,
> and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not like oath-breakers."
>
> >> If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.
> >>
> >>>In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those incapable of
> >>>independant thought or incapable of behavior acceptable to a close knit
> >>>society an anchor - a base line so to speak - of proper conduct, and it
> >>>gives the 'proper thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
> >>
> >> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent thought
> >> were most strongly adherent to those beliefs.
> >
> >Nonsense.
>
> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and again, some
> of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are are also religious. If
> you like, you can take on the words of the early feminist, Christine de Pisan,
> and say that it is not right to offend people while we challenge them. But it
> is more than that. These people are devout.
>
> > > John Bunyan was no conformist.
> >> He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed
> right
> >> to punish transgressors.
> >
> >When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena they
> >saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion. Martin
> >Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't prove
> >anything. None of them has.
>
> They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have not sought
> to prove more.
>
> >>>Unfortunately mankind is never satisfied by something simple that works or
> >>>more correctly something that cannot be used to subjugate those less
> >>>fortunate or those who seem to have a natural (and obviously
> superior) way
> >>>of dealing with the naturally occurring restrictions that come with living
> >>>in a co-operating society.
> >>
> >> What was that sentence I saw you with last night? ;-)
>
> >>>Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe destroying several
> >>>amazing civilizations in the Americas (The Conquistadores and the Jesuits
> to
> >>>name two such forces).
> >>
> >> And several native organizations -- including some of the Indian tribes
> >> oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" -- joined with the conquerors in
> their
> >> fight.
> >
> >Come on...
>
> >This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they couldn't
> >see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you can't beat 'em,
> >join 'em."
>
> "The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism, rule by
> terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec practiced cannibalism.
> It's a safe assumption that the subject peoples did not like these things. The
> "evil invaders vs. good natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.
>
> >>>Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means possible - including
> >>>total annialation - sound familiar?) that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
> >>
> >> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is "religion" to be
> damned
> >> for the bad and not commended for the good?
> >
> >I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of the
> >"good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not standing up
> >to the others creates a basis of suspicion for *everyone* who espouses
> > that religion.
>
> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil. St. Francis
> protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King led the march to Selma.
> That some of these protests did not end the abuses does not mean that they were
> worthless. A woman in Iran preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A
> woman in America writes a book against slavery.
> And some people lead their lives in peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting
> evil. I know a minster who had been the child of an alcoholic, and had
> undergone violence in childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he
> went over to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against the
> wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His church was
> strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to faith.
>
> >>>Thus we find the Jews wreaking havoc in the middle east.
> >>
> >> . . . See above.
>
> >>>Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
> >>>superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that
> virtually
> >>>all religions tell us we must not!
> >>
> >> "Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll
> post a
> >> few of their names.
>
> >Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy, some
> >perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance than any
> >other without proof.
>
> Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration of faith
> among thinking people proves that thought does not necessarily kill faith.
>
> >> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as you do.
> >
> >Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
> >reading the insanity from Chung?
>
> I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted. "No faith is
> good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see . . . Would you be willing
> to assert that an atheistic faith is good -- such as with some Buddhists, or
> the Ethical Culture? Would you say that good people have a good faith, and bad
> people have a bad faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
> Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad sect.
>
> >>>Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action or inaction)
> of
> >>>anyone is a false religion!
> >>
> >> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is that evil, or
> >> mercy?
>
> >Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.
>
> A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil to allow
> this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?
>
> >>>By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that do not fall
> into
> >>>this catagory.
> >>
> >> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
> >
> >It's in the papers every day.
>
> Ah! There's the problem. You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from
> what's in the papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and
> look at their work. You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
> differentiate him from Joe Shmoe. In the same way, you should read more deeply
> about religion, and learn from those who you think are good and true.
>
>
> E. P.


First, it is impossible to prove a negative as in "Prove that God does
not exist." Second, actually, the onus is on those who claim that God
does exist. The late Carl Sagan once observed, "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof." As a scientist (geology), I see many
aspects of nature that I don't fully understand. What I do not see is
any element of the supernatural, or of some omnipotent deity. If, as
you claim, God exists, then there should be some empiracle, testable
proof. However, there is none. There are simply the beliefs of the
religious, and appeals to biblical inerrancy - which has been shown
time and time again to be egregiously inaccurate, inconsistant, and
contradictory. When all else fails there are appeals to divine
authority in an attempt to establish the veracity of biblical
scripture. What remains is an endless loop of circular logic.

Cheers.

(Julian9EHP) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Bob (this one)"
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to disprove God.
> >> _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
> >>
> >> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
> >> scientists and statesmen. ;-)
> >
> >They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than yours.
>
> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that there is no
> God.
>
> >>>I think not.
> >>>A god is a natural invention of our specie. It was the easy way out.
> >>
> >> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism -- do
> not
> >> believe in a god.
> >
> >Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a natural
> >invention of our specie[s]."
>
> You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word natural means.
>
> "Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were overgeneralizing.
>
> >> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began in the long
> time
> >> before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
> >
> >Non sequitur.
>
> No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . " Religious people
> have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is not easy -- but then, life is
> not easy.
>
> >>>Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this life.
> >>
> >> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed
> in an
> >> afterlife.
> >
> >Still, no proof of anything.
>
> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy. Some faith
> is true, but even the true faith is not easy.
>
> >>>By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
> >>
> >> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife. Ancient
> >> Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.
> >>
> >> You make too many assumptions.
> >
> >And, still no proof.
>
> Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I have not
> sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved false.
>
> >>>So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad number of ways -
> >>>take your pick - can any one be right?) our faults and the way to overcome
> >>>them - all this based on reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
> >>
> >> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics. The
> Greco-Roman
> >> pantheon seems to have taken a long path.
>
> >Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
> >modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't have
> >a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning source of
> >our modern ethical tenets?
>
> No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey were not
> ethical. And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the Spartans,
> and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not like oath-breakers."
>
> >> If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.
> >>
> >>>In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those incapable of
> >>>independant thought or incapable of behavior acceptable to a close knit
> >>>society an anchor - a base line so to speak - of proper conduct, and it
> >>>gives the 'proper thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
> >>
> >> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent thought
> >> were most strongly adherent to those beliefs.
> >
> >Nonsense.
>
> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and again, some
> of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are are also religious. If
> you like, you can take on the words of the early feminist, Christine de Pisan,
> and say that it is not right to offend people while we challenge them. But it
> is more than that. These people are devout.
>
> > > John Bunyan was no conformist.
> >> He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed
> right
> >> to punish transgressors.
> >
> >When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena they
> >saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion. Martin
> >Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't prove
> >anything. None of them has.
>
> They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have not sought
> to prove more.
>
> >>>Unfortunately mankind is never satisfied by something simple that works or
> >>>more correctly something that cannot be used to subjugate those less
> >>>fortunate or those who seem to have a natural (and obviously
> superior) way
> >>>of dealing with the naturally occurring restrictions that come with living
> >>>in a co-operating society.
> >>
> >> What was that sentence I saw you with last night? ;-)
>
> >>>Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe destroying several
> >>>amazing civilizations in the Americas (The Conquistadores and the Jesuits
> to
> >>>name two such forces).
> >>
> >> And several native organizations -- including some of the Indian tribes
> >> oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" -- joined with the conquerors in
> their
> >> fight.
> >
> >Come on...
>
> >This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they couldn't
> >see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you can't beat 'em,
> >join 'em."
>
> "The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism, rule by
> terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec practiced cannibalism.
> It's a safe assumption that the subject peoples did not like these things. The
> "evil invaders vs. good natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.
>
> >>>Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means possible - including
> >>>total annialation - sound familiar?) that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
> >>
> >> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is "religion" to be
> damned
> >> for the bad and not commended for the good?
> >
> >I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of the
> >"good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not standing up
> >to the others creates a basis of suspicion for *everyone* who espouses
> > that religion.
>
> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil. St. Francis
> protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King led the march to Selma.
> That some of these protests did not end the abuses does not mean that they were
> worthless. A woman in Iran preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A
> woman in America writes a book against slavery.
> And some people lead their lives in peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting
> evil. I know a minster who had been the child of an alcoholic, and had
> undergone violence in childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he
> went over to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against the
> wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His church was
> strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to faith.
>
> >>>Thus we find the Jews wreaking havoc in the middle east.
> >>
> >> . . . See above.
>
> >>>Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
> >>>superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that
> virtually
> >>>all religions tell us we must not!
> >>
> >> "Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll
> post a
> >> few of their names.
>
> >Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy, some
> >perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance than any
> >other without proof.
>
> Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration of faith
> among thinking people proves that thought does not necessarily kill faith.
>
> >> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as you do.
> >
> >Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
> >reading the insanity from Chung?
>
> I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted. "No faith is
> good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see . . . Would you be willing
> to assert that an atheistic faith is good -- such as with some Buddhists, or
> the Ethical Culture? Would you say that good people have a good faith, and bad
> people have a bad faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
> Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad sect.
>
> >>>Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action or inaction)
> of
> >>>anyone is a false religion!
> >>
> >> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is that evil, or
> >> mercy?
>
> >Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.
>
> A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil to allow
> this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?
>
> >>>By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that do not fall
> into
> >>>this catagory.
> >>
> >> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
> >
> >It's in the papers every day.
>
> Ah! There's the problem. You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from
> what's in the papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and
> look at their work. You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
> differentiate him from Joe Shmoe. In the same way, you should read more deeply
> about religion, and learn from those who you think are good and true.
>
>
> E. P.


First, it is impossible to prove a negative as in "Prove that God does
not exist." Second, actually, the onus is on those who claim that God
does exist. The late Carl Sagan once observed, "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof." As a scientist (geology), I see many
aspects of nature that I don't fully understand. What I do not see is
any element of the supernatural, or of some omnipotent deity. If, as
you claim, God exists, then there should be some empiracle, testable
proof. However, there is none. There are simply the beliefs of the
religious, and appeals to biblical inerrancy - which has been shown
time and time again to be egregiously inaccurate, inconsistant, and
contradictory. When all else fails there are appeals to divine
authority in an attempt to establish the veracity of biblical
scripture. What remains is an endless loop of circular logic.

Cheers.

(Julian9EHP) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Bob (this one)"
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to disprove God.
> >> _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
> >>
> >> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
> >> scientists and statesmen. ;-)
> >
> >They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than yours.
>
> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that there is no
> God.
>
> >>>I think not.
> >>>A god is a natural invention of our specie. It was the easy way out.
> >>
> >> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism -- do
> not
> >> believe in a god.
> >
> >Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a natural
> >invention of our specie[s]."
>
> You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word natural means.
>
> "Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were overgeneralizing.
>
> >> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began in the long
> time
> >> before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
> >
> >Non sequitur.
>
> No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . " Religious people
> have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is not easy -- but then, life is
> not easy.
>
> >>>Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this life.
> >>
> >> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed
> in an
> >> afterlife.
> >
> >Still, no proof of anything.
>
> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy. Some faith
> is true, but even the true faith is not easy.
>
> >>>By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
> >>
> >> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife. Ancient
> >> Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.
> >>
> >> You make too many assumptions.
> >
> >And, still no proof.
>
> Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I have not
> sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved false.
>
> >>>So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad number of ways -
> >>>take your pick - can any one be right?) our faults and the way to overcome
> >>>them - all this based on reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
> >>
> >> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics. The
> Greco-Roman
> >> pantheon seems to have taken a long path.
>
> >Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
> >modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't have
> >a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning source of
> >our modern ethical tenets?
>
> No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey were not
> ethical. And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the Spartans,
> and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not like oath-breakers."
>
> >> If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.
> >>
> >>>In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those incapable of
> >>>independant thought or incapable of behavior acceptable to a close knit
> >>>society an anchor - a base line so to speak - of proper conduct, and it
> >>>gives the 'proper thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
> >>
> >> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent thought
> >> were most strongly adherent to those beliefs.
> >
> >Nonsense.
>
> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and again, some
> of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are are also religious. If
> you like, you can take on the words of the early feminist, Christine de Pisan,
> and say that it is not right to offend people while we challenge them. But it
> is more than that. These people are devout.
>
> > > John Bunyan was no conformist.
> >> He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed
> right
> >> to punish transgressors.
> >
> >When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena they
> >saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion. Martin
> >Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't prove
> >anything. None of them has.
>
> They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have not sought
> to prove more.
>
> >>>Unfortunately mankind is never satisfied by something simple that works or
> >>>more correctly something that cannot be used to subjugate those less
> >>>fortunate or those who seem to have a natural (and obviously
> superior) way
> >>>of dealing with the naturally occurring restrictions that come with living
> >>>in a co-operating society.
> >>
> >> What was that sentence I saw you with last night? ;-)
>
> >>>Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe destroying several
> >>>amazing civilizations in the Americas (The Conquistadores and the Jesuits
> to
> >>>name two such forces).
> >>
> >> And several native organizations -- including some of the Indian tribes
> >> oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" -- joined with the conquerors in
> their
> >> fight.
> >
> >Come on...
>
> >This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they couldn't
> >see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you can't beat 'em,
> >join 'em."
>
> "The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism, rule by
> terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec practiced cannibalism.
> It's a safe assumption that the subject peoples did not like these things. The
> "evil invaders vs. good natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.
>
> >>>Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means possible - including
> >>>total annialation - sound familiar?) that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
> >>
> >> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is "religion" to be
> damned
> >> for the bad and not commended for the good?
> >
> >I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of the
> >"good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not standing up
> >to the others creates a basis of suspicion for *everyone* who espouses
> > that religion.
>
> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil. St. Francis
> protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King led the march to Selma.
> That some of these protests did not end the abuses does not mean that they were
> worthless. A woman in Iran preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A
> woman in America writes a book against slavery.
> And some people lead their lives in peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting
> evil. I know a minster who had been the child of an alcoholic, and had
> undergone violence in childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he
> went over to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against the
> wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His church was
> strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to faith.
>
> >>>Thus we find the Jews wreaking havoc in the middle east.
> >>
> >> . . . See above.
>
> >>>Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
> >>>superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that
> virtually
> >>>all religions tell us we must not!
> >>
> >> "Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll
> post a
> >> few of their names.
>
> >Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy, some
> >perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance than any
> >other without proof.
>
> Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration of faith
> among thinking people proves that thought does not necessarily kill faith.
>
> >> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as you do.
> >
> >Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
> >reading the insanity from Chung?
>
> I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted. "No faith is
> good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see . . . Would you be willing
> to assert that an atheistic faith is good -- such as with some Buddhists, or
> the Ethical Culture? Would you say that good people have a good faith, and bad
> people have a bad faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
> Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad sect.
>
> >>>Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action or inaction)
> of
> >>>anyone is a false religion!
> >>
> >> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is that evil, or
> >> mercy?
>
> >Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.
>
> A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil to allow
> this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?
>
> >>>By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that do not fall
> into
> >>>this catagory.
> >>
> >> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
> >
> >It's in the papers every day.
>
> Ah! There's the problem. You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from
> what's in the papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and
> look at their work. You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
> differentiate him from Joe Shmoe. In the same way, you should read more deeply
> about religion, and learn from those who you think are good and true.
>
>
> E. P.


First, it is impossible to prove a negative as in "Prove that God does
not exist." Second, actually, the onus is on those who claim that God
does exist. The late Carl Sagan once observed, "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof." As a scientist (geology), I see many
aspects of nature that I don't fully understand. What I do not see is
any element of the supernatural, or of some omnipotent deity. If, as
you claim, God exists, then there should be some empiracle, testable
proof. However, there is none. There are simply the beliefs of the
religious, and appeals to biblical inerrancy - which has been shown
time and time again to be egregiously inaccurate, inconsistant, and
contradictory. When all else fails there are appeals to divine
authority in an attempt to establish the veracity of biblical
scripture. What remains is an endless loop of circular logic.

Cheers.

"Julian9EHP" > wrote in message
news:20041127213251.06270.00000657@mb-> It is as impossible to prove God
scientifically as it is to disprove God.
> _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.

True, although it IS possible to show that various
specific statements concerning a given model of "God"
cannot be correct. In other words, while it is not possible
to prove that there cannot be A god or gods, it is quite
possible to show that certain specific beliefs - particular
versions of "God," if you like - are very unlikely or
impossible.


> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some important
> scientists and statesmen. ;-)

True, but meaningless. Equally "excellent" testimonies can
readily be found, from equally "important" people, in support
of other views of God or even that there is no God at all.
Such exercises quickly becoming meaningless duels of
conflicting "experts."

> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of Buddhism --
do not
> believe in a god.

More correctly, they are silent on the subject. Buddhism does not
deny the possible existence of a God or Gods, and it is certainly
possible to be a practicing Buddhist while also maintaining a belief
in the deity or deities of another religion. Buddhism simply does
not concern itself with the question. It is, from that perspective,
more properly to be considered a "philosophy" than a "religion."


> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_ life believed
in an
> afterlife.

Various afterlives, in fact; the range of belief of those who
"wished to improve this life" is truly impressive, and this group
includes a considerable number who identify or identified
themselves as either agnostic or atheist. Clearly, adherence to
any religion (let alone any PARTICULAR religion) is no
requirement for being altruistic.


>
> >By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
>
> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an afterlife.
Ancient
> Judaism seems to have thought the personality faded out after death.

I think you'll be hard pressed to name any major present-day
belief system which includes belief in a deity of some sort and
yet does NOT propose some form of afterlife (including
reincarnation). That earlier forms of religious belief, including
the ancestors of many current religions, did not propose an
afterlife is irrelevant; any serious study of the history of the
religions of mankind will very clearly show that religious belief
evolves.


>
> If you wish to persuade, you need better proofs.
>

Arguments, not proofs. No real proof of anything has yet
been presented on this subject.

> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of independent
thought
> were most strongly adherent to those beliefs. John Bunyan was no
conformist.
> He, and other religious people, fought _against_ society and its supposed
right
> to punish transgressors.

Demonstration of independent thought in one area does not
guarantee that the individual in question will exhibit this trait
in all areas. We are, after all, talking about human beings, and
human beings are known to often possess enormous blind
spots concerning the consistency of their own beliefs or actions.


> >Until we, as a thinking people, dump this outdated and patently
> >superstitious idea of god we are doomed to do the exact thing that
virtually
> >all religions tell us we must not!
>
> "Thinking people" are religious, too. If you are ignorant of them, I'll
post a
> few of their names.

I agree, and I would disagree with the original assertion above.
Since the existence of a God or Gods cannot be either proven
or disproven, it remains a valid subject for consideration,
investigation, and discussion. What is needed, in my opinion, is
not an abandonment of the idea that there may be a God, but
rather an abandonment of the sort of over-zealous evangelism,
and rabid assertion of the infallibility of one's own particular
belief system, such as we have seen here. In today's world, with
virtually instantaneous, world-wide communications channels
and distribution of information, it becomes more and more unlikely
that those who do not believe a certain way are doing so simply
because they have not heard of that particular belief. It becomes
more and more likely, on the other hand, that people hold the
beliefs that they do for reasons that are as valid to them as those
given by others. So what I would much rather see is not an
abandonment of any and all religious belief, but certainly an
abandonment of the sort of belief and behavior whereby any
group or individual tries to force a belief on another. Thank you,
I have heard your argument - now please be quiet and give
someone else a turn, or better yet simply be quiet and let me
go on with my life as I choose to do so. That sort of thing.

Unfortunately, I don't expect this to actually happen any time
soon.

Bob M.

"Julian9EHP" > wrote in message
...
> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that there is
no
> God.

Testimony by itself is nothing, for the simple reason that
it is more than evident that people can be wrong. Even
large numbers of people. That is why it is important that
testimony be supported by evidence and reasoning.



> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy. Some
faith
> is true, but even the true faith is not easy.

However, simply being "not easy" is no reason to
believe that something is CORRECT. Many people
have gone through truly incredible adversity for what
were ultimately proven to be erroneous beliefs. Others
have IMPOSED incredible adversity for the same
reason.


> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and again,
some
> of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are are also religious.

And some were not. Or some were religious, but
believed in a vastly different religion than is being discussed
here. What is this intended to show?


> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil. St.
Francis
> protested the crusades: so did many others.

And yet the Crusades occurred. Good stands up to evil, and
often vice-versa, and there seems no way to conclude that either
will always prevail.


Bob M.

No prob, E.P. I was actually replying/appending my own post before I even
saw your response. The "Gnostic book" I was quoting is the Gospel according
to Matthew, 24:14 (Olivette discourse). Though it may be correct that some
(I would not say "much") of what Paul states in his epistles originated (or
rather, agrees) with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, by far, the bulk of
Pauline doctrine has more to do with interpreting the meaning of the advent
of "Christ-Messiah"and "salvation" (which assumes all are lost without it).
Added to that are counsul and reasonings written to advise and enlighten the
young churches established throughout his journeys. It is not the
reiterations of Jesus teachings that displace them, it is the appendages.
Leaven, as in baking, puffs up the original lump, but it adds no real
substance, only air. Two-thirds of the New Testament text are letters and
council written by Paul, if you credit him for the Epistle to Hebrews. Yet,
it would not be fair to assume that Paul himself either intended or expected
his writings to be peddled as "the gospel".


"Julian9EHP" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "zuuum"
>
>>So... when you read, Jesus said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall go into
>>all the world."..... insert [this gospel under construction.. waiting for
>>Pauline epistles]
>
> You're quoting a Gnostic book? Heh . . .
>
> My original statement was that much of Paul's statements originate in what
> Jesus said. You've not written anything that would falsify what I wrote.
> E. P.

>First, it is impossible to prove a negative as in "Prove that God does
>not exist." Second, actually, the onus is on those who claim that God
>does exist. The late Carl Sagan once observed, "Extraordinary claims
>require extraordinary proof." As a scientist (geology), I see many
>aspects of nature that I don't fully understand. What I do not see is
>any element of the supernatural, or of some omnipotent deity. If, as
>you claim, God exists, then there should be some empiracle, testable
>proof. However, there is none. There are simply the beliefs of the
>religious, and appeals to biblical inerrancy - which has been shown
>time and time again to be egregiously inaccurate, inconsistant, and
>contradictory. When all else fails there are appeals to divine
>authority in an attempt to establish the veracity of biblical
>scripture. What remains is an endless loop of circular logic.
>
>Cheers.

I have not claimed that God could be proved. And your attempt to use science
as a counterindication for God fails.

The question, "Is there a god?" is the question, "Is there anything _besides_
the empirical universe?" The statement, "There is nothing other than the
empirical universe because there is nothing of it in the empirical universe"
begs the question.
Science is a wonderful device to study the material universe. It can tell us
that there are things we cannot study empirically. Beyond that it cannot go.


E. P.

"Whether it's God or the bomb
It's just the same
It's only fear under another name"
Max Q


Dear Ekoms,

That quote you give is not correct. The fear of God is a reverent awe,
the fear of a bomb is plain and simply fear for one's self. However, if
a God fearing individual was about to be bombed to death and a
non-believer, then the God fearing individual will be at peace with
themselves, and they will certainly know how to meet their end. The
non-believer on the other hand may be spend their precious last few
moments fearing the eternal death of an unrepented sinner.

If neither have time to think, then the God fearing individual is
always going to be prepared for their death.

In Christ's love
Carol T

"Whether it's God or the bomb
It's just the same
It's only fear under another name"
Max Q


Dear Ekoms,

That quote you give is not correct. The fear of God is a reverent awe,
the fear of a bomb is plain and simply fear for one's self. However, if
a God fearing individual was about to be bombed to death and a
non-believer, then the God fearing individual will be at peace with
themselves, and they will certainly know how to meet their end. The
non-believer on the other hand may be spend their precious last few
moments fearing the eternal death of an unrepented sinner.

If neither have time to think, then the God fearing individual is
always going to be prepared for their death.

In Christ's love
Carol T

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > wrote in message
news:1108944405.a75c1e42f3eb6d1000bef1bd4c930b3c@t eranews...

<< snip all the macro-crap>>

> Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
> oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
> "omer" literally means in Hebrew.

So, Doc. If Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16 oz makes
2 pounds, wouldn't Exodus 11:1 remind us that 11 (jacks or better) plus 1
(ace) makes Blackjack?

OooooOOOOooohhhhhh.....GOD INVENTED BLACKJACK!?!?!?!? I'm headed to Vegas!

You're a flake, Chung but entertaining none the less.

Bret
<Wants to go to Vegas...Who wants to pool their money with me to play God's
card game?>

ps. I also stripped out all of the cross-posting. This is just for us
RFC'ers. I'm not gonna pool my money with anyone but RFC'ers! <BEG>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article . com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > wrote:
>It is written that what is impossible for man is possible for God.

How can this be so, given that man was made in God's image?

P.S. You've got me buggered with that "MD", mate.
I know BS = bullshit; MS = more shit; and PhD = piled higher and
deeper. But MD = ? (More deep?)






Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

(Phred) wrote in news:38r7d4F5qjsamU1
@individual.net:

> In article . com>,
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > wrote:
>>It is written that what is impossible for man is possible for God.
>
> How can this be so, given that man was made in God's image?
>
> P.S. You've got me buggered with that "MD", mate.
> I know BS = bullshit; MS = more shit; and PhD = piled higher and
> deeper. But MD = ? (More deep?)

I lean towards "Masturbatory dickhead".

--

[...] remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down 'ere on Earth!

Monty Python's Universe Song

In article >, Michel Boucher > wrote:
(Phred) wrote in news:38r7d4F5qjsamU1
:
>
>> In article . com>,
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > wrote:
>>>It is written that what is impossible for man is possible for God.
>>
>> How can this be so, given that man was made in God's image?
>>
>> P.S. You've got me buggered with that "MD", mate.
>> I know BS = bullshit; MS = more shit; and PhD = piled higher and
>> deeper. But MD = ? (More deep?)
>
>I lean towards "Masturbatory dickhead".

Speaking of which, earlier this week a letter writer in the local
daily tabloid was being a little critical of some opposing views, so
he referred to the author as "Richard Cranium".

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID