Hi Mike:
I reviewed the LONG post as you requested and the first thing I have to say
is that the whole ocelots method just really stinks for engaging in any kind
of online discussion or debate. I realize that it's difficult to set up a
usenet group, but sooner or later I think you are going to have to bite the
bullet. There is just no way to carry on a cogent thread using the One List
system. Having griped enough, let me offer a few observations. The whole exercise
seems to be a sort of bad-weed induced stream of consciousness without form
or reason. I apply this not only to the theists in the thread, but to your
atheist friend (Fred) as well. I am reminded of Steven Hawkings lament
about the schism between philosophy and science. There are so many posts
which evidence bad science, bad philosophy, outright sophistry and a general
lack of reasonable perspective.
I'd caution your friends that if you are going to engage in a scientific
debate, that it must be not only scientifically sound, but logically and
philosophically sound as well. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I
read Fred's comments about 'faith memes' and elsewhere about verifiable
'acausal events' -- a clear case of attempting to baffle with BS rather than
inform or enlighten. I half suspect that Fred is just having a little
mean-spirited fun with y'all. For the record ... Richard Dawkins; 'meme'
concept is hardly an accepted scientific precept out side of a very narrow
group. It seems to exist for no other purpose that to attach a catch phrase
to the complete inability of evolutionists to adequately describe the
'evolution' of consciousness and intelligence. Making up a word is not quite
the same thing as developing a valid scientific theory. Yes, yes, yes ...
I've read Blackmore and Dawkins and Brodie, but I've also read enough
Aristotle to know bad logic when I see it. And I've read enough Chomsky to
know that other, better theories abound.
Concerning acausal events: All events are by definition 'acausal' until a
cause is found. It is beyond pretension to make a claim that certain
quantum-level events are 'acausal' when the events have only been so
recently observed as to disallow experimentation to deduce a cause! At one
time in human history a rat running out of a haystack was considered an
'acausal' event consistent with the spontaneous generation of life theory.
Do you get this? People (SMART people at that) actually believed - upon this
observation - that rats were spontaneously GENERATED by haystacks!?! The
entire history of science militates against the very possibility of an
'acausal' event within our space-time universe. Now he'll want to drag out
quantum-tunneling or some other tasty bit ...
Which leads me to the fundamental sophistry and context-switching ... these
are great tactics in a political debate, but are disastrous to good reason
in a scientific discussion. There are several points in the post where the
only retorts given to an argument is the logical kin to 'Yes, but what
about ...' -- this is the classic sophist technique, and serve more to
distract than anything else. It hardly qualifies as a reasoned response. I'm
also choking on the concept that Fred would trot out a few book titles, dare
everyone to read them, and then weasel out of a similar challenge by saying
something to the effect of "I don't have time". That's just plain hypocrisy.
It's a poor warrior - he who is afraid to enter the fray. I pray that I
never make a claim to erudition so cheaply.
Well, I'm spent. Whaddaya want for 10 minutes worth!!!

Sincerely,W.A. Scheer
dansgold@jps.net
==============================================================
Please see my comments below, interleaved for your perusal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Montoya [mailto:montoya@integrityonline1.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 6:50 PM
To: dansgold@jps.net
Subject: Fw: [cobu] Wasn't sure FRED -- Fred's response to Allen Scheer
 

- Fred's response to Allen Scheer and all Allen's repsonse to the response
 

From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>

Mike,
I've read your commentary from your brother in law. Here's my response. Be sure to give it to him.
Hi Mike:
I reviewed the LONG post as you requested and the first thing I have to say is that the whole OneList method just really stinks for engaging in any kind of online discussion or debate. I realize that it's difficult to set up a
usenet group, but sooner or later I think you are going to have to bite the
bullet.
Actually, it will be quite easy for me to set up a localized USENET group on my server. This is actually a good idea, and I may do it soon. My question is, how many of the users here are equipped to read USENET news?
There is just no way to carry on a cogent thread using the One List
system.
I have to disagree with this. Listservers have been around for nearly as long as the Internet, long before the Internet became a household word, and many, many cogent debates have been transacted over them.
Perhaps it is all the new-fangled HTML formatting that annoys you. It annoys me too. Whatever happened to plain ASCII text messages with indented quotes?
 

Having griped enough, let me offer a few observations. The whole exercise
seems to be a sort of bad-weed induced stream of consciousness without form
or reason. I apply this not only to the theists in the thread, but to your
atheist friend (Fred) as well. I am reminded of Steven Hawkings lament
about the schism between philosophy and science. There are so many posts
which evidence bad science, bad philosophy, outright sophistry and a general
lack of reasonable perspective.
I generally go along with the tone and format of the group of which I am a part.
ALLEN: Sooo ... it's everyone ELSE's fault? No, no, no that just won't do. It's just too close to "I was only following orders". I'd submit that we are all responsible for whatever tone we choose to use.
I'd caution your friends that if you are going to engage in a scientific
debate, that it must be not only scientifically sound, but logically and
philosophically sound as well. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I
read Fred's comments about 'faith memes' and elsewhere about verifiable
'acausal events' -- a clear case of attempting to baffle with BS rather than
inform or enlighten.
I was not trying to baffle with BS. acausality is a demonstrated fact as experiments with zero-point energy has shown.
 ALLEN: Since quantum-level events are at least possibly unbound by 4D physics, no such claim of "fact" is even testable, much less provable.

When I respond or put forth something in this group, I have to be mindful that there is a broad range of understanding present here, and I tend to be less rigorous on purpose, in attempts to make my words more accessible. I have to speak to the audience, not at them. What good would it do if I adhered to rigorous precision and loose the main audience?

ALLEN: But it's bad faith to present such concepts as memes - undefined - and then claim that you have made an argument, when in fact all you have done is introduce a new term.  This is little more than pretentious posturing.

As far as "faith memes", I merely put forward my hypothesis as a alternative and more plausible explanation of the behavior that is observed among Christians. In time, I may be in more of a position to actually conduct live research in this area of memetics. Also, if I recall, I did give references and links to excellent books and websites, respectively, where the more intellectually engaging is free to study for deeper understanding.

I thought it was Richard Dawkins' hypothesis. But wait .. can't I just claim that "I don't have the time to check out every crackpot claim that someone throws my way" as you do? Many of us have families, jobs, wives, run websites, etc.. - that gives you no special claim. You mentioned in earlier posts at least 6 or 7 titles for suggested reading .. how many are you willing to commit to in return? I have to say that it's an unfair test though ... I've already read all of the titles on your list them (if memory suffices) except for something called 'Contagious Thought' or 'Contagion' (correct me hear, I'm a bit shaky on the title) do I get my $1000 yet? Would you like to buy a vowel or use a lifeline? It may surprise you to know that a couple of those book are what led TO a  theistic world-view rather than FROM it.

I half suspect that Fred is just having a little mean-spirited fun with y'all.

This is not the case at all. I have better things to do with my time -- it takes quite a bit of time to compose my thoughts and responses. If I want to have "mean-spirited fun", I'd go shoot a few skinheads or neo-Nazi types. I did not create this group to play "head games" with all those involved. I created this group in an effort to help those of us still suffering from the COBU experience.

I suggest that is possible to 'help' those recovering from cult involvement without trashing all theism and theistic world views.

For the record ... Richard Dawkins; 'meme' concept is hardly an accepted scientific precept out side of a very narrow group.
I don't go by Richard Dawkins' meme concepts, but that of Aaron Lynch, who has taken the metaphor and lack of rigor out of the concepts of memetics and have placed them on sound scientific footing.
I entreat you to read Arron's paper:UNITS, EVENTS, AND DYNAMICS IN MEMETIC EVOLUTION
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/memetheory.htm
I have met Aaron Lynch personally -- indeed, I brought him down to our Skeptics group in Philadelphia -- PhACT, and he was well received by everyone. For more information on PhACT -- Philadelphia Association on Critical Thinking, http://www.phact.org

A fascinating read - thank you. It appears to me that all that Lynch has done is codify the concept so that it can be symbolically represented. How does this make it any more "scientifically" sound or true. I quote from his section on "Falsifiability": "Yet particular aspects of a specific memetic hypothesis can be falsified by less elaborate means as well. If a proposed model for the spread of anti-abortionism hypothesizes that the belief "abortion as wrong" leads adherents to raise more children than non-adherents, then the whole model could be falsified by, for instance, showing that non-adherents raise equal or greater numbers of children. If such data were gathered, and proven representative of whole societies over long time spans, then there would be no need to begin the more elaborate procedures of measuring additional parameters and performing computations." In fact, world wide there is no difference (according the A. Gutmacher Institute)  By Lynch's own criteria ... all I can offer is a hearty Q.E.D. or R.I.P. as the case may warrant.

It seems to exist for no other purpose that to attach a catch phrase
to the complete inability of evolutionists to adequately describe the
'evolution' of consciousness and intelligence.
I'm afraid that you've only seen the "bad memetics" information that has been circulating around, reducing memetics to nothing more than "cocktail science." With every science you have an associated pseudo science that also arises. The "cocktail" version of memetics, had that been my first exposure, would have turned me off as well. I was fortunate to come across Aaron's more scientifically rigorous Memetics first.
Making up a word is not quite the same thing as developing a valid scientific theory. Yes, yes, yes ...
I've read Blackmore and Dawkins and Brodie, but I've also read enough Aristotle to know bad logic when I see it. And I've read enough Chomsky toknow that other, better theories abound.
Again, I ask you to review Lynch's paper in the above link. I think you will agree that this is a much more rigorous and scientifically sound version of memetics than Blackmore's cocktail version.
Concerning acausal events: All events are by definition 'acausal' until a
cause is found. It is beyond pretension to make a claim that certain
quantum-level events are 'acausal' when the events have only been so
recently observed as to disallow experimentation to deduce a cause!
There has been much debate over the years regarding "hidden variables" -- I think the current consensus in the Physics community is that there are none. Besides, in an otherwise perfect vacuum, what could possibly "cause" particles to appear out of nowhere -- and to vanish back into nowhere? Please search on "Zero-point Energy" for the tons of references over this phenomena. Our human concepts of cause and effect simply fall apart at the quantum level. Don't worry -- most scientists don't understand it either, but it has been verified countless times in many experiments. And anyone who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics is to be highly suspect. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to our commonsense.
Hmmm ... lots of debate and 'consensus' do not a valid theory make. Especially when "lots of scientists don't understand it either", and anyone who claims to understand it is to be "highly suspect". Just what kind of dogmatic drivel are you peddling? If they don't understand it then how - logically - are they able to make any claims - negative or positive - regarding a given 'acausality'. Quantum-level events appear to be unbound by 4D physics. You claim (I think) to have read "Flatland" ... would not an event originating in a 3rd dimension, and terminating (or traversing) a 2D plane "appear out of nowhere -- and to vanish back into nowhere" if observed only within the 2D frame of reference? Of course they would! Given that 10 or more dimensions are at least a mathematically possibility ... how can you be so quick to make a claim of acausality? All that can be claimed scientifically is that we have an event fro which we know (presently) of no cause.
At one time in human history a rat running out of a haystack was considered an
'acausal' event consistent with the spontaneous generation of life theory.
Do you get this? People (SMART people at that) actually believed - upon this
observation - that rats were spontaneously GENERATED by haystacks!?!
They only believed that because they failed to do simple experiments to prove otherwise. I forgot who did the experiment with the maggots, which also was thought to be spontaneously generated. The experiment was ridiculously simple -- two jars, a piece of meat in each, one with the cover on and one with the cover off. The one uncovered produced maggots, the one covered did not. End of story.
It was Louis Pasteur ... against the entire scientific and academic community of his time, with the possible exception of Joseph Lister. It is notable that Darwin's (then new) theories held considerable sway in both the British and French academic and medical communities. His experiments (which ultimately led to all that good stuff about microbes, disease, penicillin, making better beer, etc.) were felt to be at odds with 'spontaneous' (acausal?) theories of life origination. Oh well ...
The entire history of science militates against the very possibility of an
'acausal' event within our space-time universe. Now he'll want to drag out
quantum-tunneling or some other tasty bit ...

How about the decay of radioactive atoms? By all measures, the decay is totally random, you cannot predict when any particular nucleus decays. Nothing you can do to these atoms -- changing the number of nucleons notwithstanding -- affects their rate of decay, outside of accelerating them to relativistic speeds, in which case you're talking time dilation effects, which has nothing to do with the nucleus itself, but the effects of the special theory of relativity, where relative time simply slows down for relativistic frames of reference.

Like I said, our commonsense notions do not apply to the quantum world. Even the beginning of the universe is thought to be an acausal event. Please read The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

Which leads me to the fundamental sophistry and context-switching ... these
are great tactics in a political debate, but are disastrous to good reason
in a scientific discussion.

Perhaps, when you are afforded more time, can point out specific areas of my so-called "sophistry". It is easy to make vague and off-handed criticisms. It is quite another to support them.
There are several points in the post where the
only retorts given to an argument is the logical kin to 'Yes, but what
about ...' -- this is the classic sophist technique, and serve more to
distract than anything else.
I await to see the specific areas in my debate where I do this.
You do it in this very post ... see above where you take off on a tangent:  "How about the decay of radioactive atoms?"
It is considered sophistry to engage a second particular before concluding the first, usually in a serial progression. It is the very essence of Sophistry (or Sophism, to be absolutely correct) to question everything without really wanting the answers. And isn't that really what you are doing here in the whole thread of the discussion on the website? You don't really seem to want to probe any deeper into any question than is absolutely necessary to convince yourself that you don't need to worry about probing any further. I've most or all of the books that you listed - and yes I do understand them. Are you ready for my list? Are you ready to step back and consider everything free from ANY preconceived notions and stick scrupulously to what makes sense and what does not? CAN you?
It hardly qualifies as a reasoned response. I'm
also choking on the concept that Fred would trot out a few book titles, dare
everyone to read them, and then weasel out of a similar challenge by saying
something to the effect of "I don't have time". That's just plain hypocrisy.
No, it's plain honesty. I don't have the time to check out every crackpot claim that someone throws my way. I do intend to spend a some time on the so-called "Bible Codes" when I get a chance, since I think I can do the most good here.
Eeek - save your time. You are brighter than to waste your time on such trivia,
  But I do have this little thing called a Family -- wife and 3 kids, one of which is severely mentally handicapped (autism). I also run 3 websites and a support group for parents in certain dire situations. But my newly chosen profession should afford me more time to pursue a few of these claims once I get the details worked out. So stay tuned.
Debunking the "Bible Codes" will require some effort on my part -- it's not just a matter of reading the books, etc.
Besides, I did give a reference to a site where the debunking has already been done for the "evidence of Christian Faith" book. It was done on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Why should I spend time re-inventing the wheel?

Please forward a link ... more grist, must have more grist!

It's a poor warrior - he who is afraid to enter the fray. I pray that I
never make a claim to erudition so cheaply.
Afraid to enter the fray? What have I been doing all this time? I have practically thrown myself to the wolves in this group.
 Nahh, that's not really fair. Most of the people you are arguing with have neither your intelligence or quickness of wit. (That's intended as an insult to none by-the-way) That hardly equates to throwing yourself to even a cub, much less a pack. It doesn't automatically guarantee your success, at any rate. It's still quite possible that you are wrong - about a great many things.
 As far as erudition, it is not a cheap claim. Sir, I have spent many, many years of my life adding to my storehouse of knowledge.
 But so have many others, including myself. You are to be commended, but you (and I for that matter) are hardly special. Intellectual rectitude is as damning as any other kind, and should be more so. The claim is no better that that of someone who has memorized the whole Bible and understands none of it. It reminds me of an old line (and I think you'll like this) that I've used when I get into a discussion with some fellow Christian who (Lord help them) clearly has no clue about some matter or other, but makes the "I have the mind of Christ" claim. The retort is always "Give it BACK - you're RUINING IT!" You can do better than this. The very books you suggest are so full of logical evasions as to almost force you to reject the conclusions at first gloss. But you seem to accept the conclusions blissfully unaware of the underlying illogic. That hardly amounts to erudition or a "storehouse" of anything of value. Look, I know I have a somewhat nasty tone, but I assure this is all meant in good faith. If I didn't think you were up to it, I'd nod my head knowingly, say nothing and move on ...
 Well, I guess some will always in the wings to throw cheap shots at my hard work and accomplishments.
My apologies for any cheapness. Good quality ammo is hard to come by these days. But lets be clear here ... putting in a whole bunch of hard work is of no value unless the work results in something of value. If all your hard work has resulted in your acceding to a dogmatic belief in what some philosophers (not all of them Christian or even theists for that matter) call "promissory scientism" or any number of positions which are incorrect ~ again, of what value?
In any case, I look forward to taking you on one-on-one.

Well, jeez, Fred - is this about "taking me on"? That sounds awfully as though you intend to simply beat up on me any way that you can. Didn't you just chide me (and perhaps correctly) for taking "cheap shots"? I'll be the first to say that if anyone can provide the necessary evidence to prove atheism, et al ... I'll be the first to raise my hand and join up! I used to BE an atheist. I am now a committed Christian. I'll be the first to admit that my previous atheism was mostly unfounded and serves as a terrible straw-man to beat up on. But I have to consider ALL of the evidence. I have to read, listen to and carefully consider those views which directly oppose my present understanding re: Christ, God etc. It is precisely that approach which has served to confirm my relationship with the God who IS there. Can you do the same from your position? Can you suspend your disbelief as mush as I suspend my belief so that we can - in the words of Christ - "reason together"?

I for one look forward.

Grace and Peace

William Allen Scheer

=========================================================
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>

     No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence of any
     extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
     infinitesimal.

     I'd hate to have to be in your shoes when you are weeping
     and gnashing your teeth as you will stand before a Holy God
     that desires that none should perish.

     Best regards de Raynard & Lena Merritt
     Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our
     Lord Jesus, that
     great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
     everlasting covenant,
     make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working
     in you that which
     is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom
     be glory for ever
     and ever. Amen.
==========================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

Fred:
Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you sense or measure the
presence of your God in an objective manner?

Bob:
Fair enough. I'll answer your question as honestly as I can, and
afterwards I have a question for you that I'd like you to answer as
honestly as you can.
        I sense the presence of God by answered prayers, a fulfilled and joyful
life (I'm not claiming "happiness" as the world defines it, but what the
Bible calls joy), peace, assurance of eternal life, hope, meaning and
purpose, and significance. I'm sure you'll chalk all of this up to
psychological phenomena, but as I said, this is honest, from the heart.
Is it objective? No. Is it real? It's as real as anything in life.
        Okay, now it's your turn. You made the claim that "there is no way to
sense or determine their [God's] presence." Prove this statement -- and
no diversion tactics either.
 

Fred:
What you chose to believe does not reality make. Even if
1000 or 1 million people chose to believe it STILL does not
reality make. Millions thought there was going to be a major
Y2K crisis, but it didn't happen. Many of the course of
history though the world would come to an end, and yet here
we are. Come on, Bob! I give you more credit for
intelligence than this!!!!!

Bob:
I agree with you that no amount of believing by any number of people make
anything a reality. But this isn't the argument here -- you've gone off
on a tangent. You made the statement that "if there are extra-universal
beings, chances are that such beings would be unaware of our existence."
On what basis can you make an assumption such as this? What I'm saying is
that part of the American definition of God, if there is one, is that He
is all-knowing.
 

Fred:
No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence of any
extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.

Bob:
I believe the word atheist comes from the Greek "atheos." In Greek, the
prefix "a" means "no" and "theos" means "God." In other words, "no God."
What part of "no" don't you understand? :-) Sorry, Fred, I couldn't
resist that one!
 

Fred:
You are not hearing me. See, because I say that "it cannot
logically be ruled out", you are ready to rush right in with
your particular brand of god. There is a flip side -- your
brand of god cannot logically be ruled in, either!!!!!

Bob:
No, I'm not rushing you to believe in the God that I believe in, but I
think deep inside you do believe that there is Someone out there greater
than us. Not to play psychologist here, but I just think because of our
very negative experience in COBU, you're afraid that the God out there is
like the god of COBU. I can assure you He's much more kind and patient
and gracious.
 

Fred:
See, Bob, you did it. You have rushed in with your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That there's an
infinite number of possibilities. That means the Greek Gods
are a possibility. That means that the roach you crushed
underfoot this morning is a possibility. That means that my
pet Kid with Ant Farm is a possibility. Or that the universe
is just an experiment in some vast laboratory. Or a bacteria
your body just killed. Or anything any fertile mind on this
planet can dream up. And an infinite number more.
Not one can be proved to be more valid than another, and
therefore that means that not god notion can be preferred
over another. And since there is no way to show or prove or
demonstrate that ANY of these scenarios is the "true
scenario for god(s)", since their objective effect on the
universe is nil, the ONLY way anyone can choose has to be
based on personal preference and/or acculturation.
That is to say, there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to choose the
"true" or "correct" god.

Bob:
Since I see you as an intelligent person, you should know that what we're
after is not what's possible. That's a complete waste of time. What we're
after is what is PROBABLE. This reminds me of the argument in the sitcom
"Just Shoot Me" that I saw last night. Two characters were arguing
whether or not the moon landing ever took place. Is it possible that it
didn't? Of course. Is it probable? Unlikely. What's the probability of
the roach being a god? Zilch -- so why bring it up? Where's the honest
skeptic I thought I was talking to?
        About your statement, "there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to choose the 'true' or
'correct' god" -- in order for you to make  this statement and back it
up, you'd have to be the all-knowing God! I say that because in order for
you to prove it, you'd have to have searched the infinite number of ways
of choosing the true god, and found that they all fell short.
        On your comment, "their [gods] objective effect on the universe is nil,"
consider the following: 2 billion of the 6 billion people alive today
call themselves Christians (not necessarily evangelical). I realize that
doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it does show that Jesus has
influenced the lives of billions of people -- how they think, believe,
and live. If that's not affecting the universe, I don't know what is. By
that fact alone, Jesus' life and teachings are worth examining. An honest
skeptic, I think, would do that.
 

Fred:
There may have been a person, a man, who called himself
Jesus. I don't know.

Bob:
Ah, there's the honest skeptic. Thank you. Why not continue to do
research on this? We're not talking about a crackpot theory here.
 

Fred:
But do I buy any of the fantastic
claims he supposedly did? No. Reanimation? Definitely not!
There is NO convincing historical evidence that would show
that anyone in that era became reanimated. Missing bodies
and the like ARE NOT evidence of reanimation! There are more
plausible explanations for those, and they are to be
considered before you jump on the more fantastic.

Bob:
Remember the famous line from Jerry Maguire? "Show me the money!" Fred,
show me the more plausible explanations. Actually, the alternatives I've
heard are more "fantastic" than the one the authors of the Bible
recorded.
 

Fred:
You can have living legends. Jesus may have been a living
legend. Show me the evidence that those fantastic claims
took place --

Bob:
Haven't we been on this merry-go-round before? Okay, one last ride:
1. Noteworthy archaeologists, not necessarily Christian, have stated that
the Bible is historically reliable. (I gave you the names of those
archaeologists in the past.)
2. In these historically reliable documents, Jesus is recorded as
claiming that He is the Son of God.
3. Knowing our skepticism, He validated this "fantastic claim," by doing
miracles so that we may believe.
4. Jesus also predicted that He would die and rise from the dead to prove
that He is the Son of God.
5. Jesus is crucified and dies by asphyxiation (sp) and is pierced
through the heart with a spear to make sure He is dead.
6. The Jewish high priests, who knew about Jesus' claim that He would
rise from the dead, tries to make sure that it does not happen by a)
placing a large stone in front of the stone; b) having highly trained and
efficient Roman soldiers guard the tomb; and c) putting a Roman seal on
the tomb, meaning that if anyone broke the seal by moving the stone, that
person would do so at the risk of death. In addition, Jesus' body was
wrapped with 200 pounds worth of cloths and spices and other stuff the
Jewish people used to bury their dead.
7. Despite all of the above, the stone is rolled away, the seal is
broken, the Roman soldiers are left in fear and astonishment, and the
most closely watched and guarded body in Palestine disappears and is
never found!
8. Jesus appears to more than 500 witnesses over a period of 40 days.
9. Jesus appears to Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee (from the same sect as the
high priests who had Jesus crucified) who had been zealously persecuting
Christians by putting them in prison and even to death. Saul is converted
and becomes a zealous missionary, church planter, apologist for
Christianity, and the author of 13 New Testament books. We know him as
the Apostle Paul.
10. Skeptics who doubted Jesus when He made those "fantastic claims" are
converted and become church leaders. Among these are his own brothers,
who thought He was a lunatic. One of them, James, becomes a leader of
leaders in Jerusalem and writes one of the books of the New Testament.
The other, Jude, also writes one of the letters of the New Testament.
11. Those disciples who ran away like cowards (this isn't to belittle
them, I'm sure I would have done the same) when Jesus was arrested,
become some of the most courageous people the world has ever known. This
includes Peter who denied Jesus because he was afraid for his life. Peter
would later write two books of the New Testament and then, according to
tradition, die a martyr's death.
12. All twelve apostles (Judas was replaced by Matthias), according to
tradition, choose to die a martyr's death rather than deny that Jesus
rose from the dead.

There are other evidences that I could provide, but I'm not so sure if
that would make any difference anyway. Jesus said,  "If they do not
listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if
someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). I sincerely hope this will not
be said of you, Fred.

Bob San Pascual
========================================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
 
 

> From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
>
> Fred:
> I know I'm speaking to theists, so I speak to my audience,
> in order to  bridge the gap. Mark my words, I'm as atheistic as they come.  But from a standpoint of logic, I hold that there's an infinity of possibilities, as you know,  including my pet "Kid with Ant Farm" god. But I declare  each and every of the infinity of possibilities irrelevant, since there is  no way to sense or determine their presence. Also, if there are extra-universal beings, chances are that such beings would be unaware of our existence. The microbes on your keyboard in relation to you are MUCH BIGGER than we
> are in relation to the entire universe. In other words, to say that we are "mere dustspecks" in the universe would be a gross overstatement.

> Bob:
> Talk about assumptions, Fred, there's a couple of bad ones
> you made here. First, that "there is no way to sense or determine their [God's] presence." You close yourself off to sensing the presence
> of God and then you make the statement that one cannot sense the presence of God. That's not an honest skeptic to me.
>
Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you sense or measure the
presence of your God in an objective manner?

>  Second, "if there are extra-universal
> beings, chances are that such beings would be unaware of our existence." This one is pretty bad, since most people who live in the
> U.S., not just Christians, would define God as someone who is at the very least all-knowing.
>
What you chose to believe does not reality make. Even if
1000 or 1 million people chose to believe it STILL does not
reality make. Millions thought there was going to be a major
Y2K crisis, but it didn't happen. Many of the course of
history though the world would come to an end, and yet here
we are. Come on, Bob! I give you more credit for
intelligence than this!!!!!

> Fred:
> Not just "a", but any number of extra-universal beings which us primitives
> would label as "gods". I cannot logically rule that possibility out, so I
> must accept that. But there is no reason to suppose that the "gods out there",
> if any, are anything like the Christian's notion of god.
>
> Bob:
> This is exactly what I'm saying. If you can't logically
> rule out the
> possibility that there is a God, then you're not an
> atheist -- you're an
> agnostic.
>
No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence of any
extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
infinitesimal.

>  This is more open-minded to me, Fred. Why not stop
> vacillating between atheism and agnosticism depending on who you're
> talking to and at least stick with your own statement that you "cannot
> logically rule that possibility out"? Be consistent and stop being like Jello
> that can't be pinned down. :-)
>
You are not hearing me. See, because I say that "it cannot
logically be ruled out", you are ready to rush right in with
your particular brand of god. There is a flip side -- your
brand of god cannot logically be ruled in, either!!!!!

> Fred:
> It's the way I choose to live my life, since I am unable
> (let alone
> unwilling) to worship an infinite number of possible gods.
> (!)
>
> Bob:
> Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. I appreciate
> your honesty here. Seems to me your unwillingness to worship God has
> led you to denying there really is a God which led you to refuse to
> honestly examine the evidences people have been giving you over the past
> few weeks. And I'm not talking about the issue of homosexuality.
>
See, Bob, you did it. You have rushed in with your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That there's an
infinite number of possibilities. That means the Greek Gods
are a possibility. That means that the roach you crushed
underfoot this morning is a possibility. That means that my
pet Kid with Ant Farm is a possibility. Or that the universe
is just an experiment in some vast laboratory. Or a bacteria
your body just killed. Or anything any fertile mind on this
planet can dream up. And an infinite number more.
Not one can be proved to be more valid than another, and
therefore that means that not god notion can be preferred
over another. And since there is no way to show or prove or
demonstrate that ANY of these scenarios is the "true
scenario for god(s)", since their objective effect on the
universe is nil, the ONLY way anyone can choose has to be
based on personal preference and/or acculturation.
That is to say, there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to choose the
"true" or "correct" god.

> Bob:
   As far as your points above, I've written
> previously that by Jesus rising from the dead, He validated His claims to be the
> Son of God.
>
> Fred:
> Well, that's what the writing says. As to whether that's more than legend, I doubt it.
>
> Bob:
> You've refused to even acknowledge Jesus as a historical
> figure, when the
> evidence is overwhelmingly for it.
>
There may have been a person, a man, who called himself
Jesus. I don't know. But do I buy any of the fantastic
claims he supposedly did? No. Reanimation? Definitely not!
There is NO convincing historical evidence that would show
that anyone in that era became reanimated. Missing bodies
and the like ARE NOT evidence of reanimation! There are more
plausible explanations for those, and they are to be
considered before you jump on the more fantastic.

>  Even liberal theologians have given up
> trying to make Jesus a "legend" as you call it. They're
> busy with other
> tactics now.
>
You can have living legends. Jesus may have been a living
legend. Show me the evidence that those fantastic claims
took place --

>

-Fred
================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
 

  Bob:
  Now this again is more real as I see it. You've got issues with
  authority, not with the evidences for the historicity of Jesus or
  with the existence of God. The good news, Fred, is that you can speak
  with God- He's waiting to hear from you.

But he won't talk directly back. I may as well be speaking to a wall or my favorite
stuffed animal. You just don't get it, do you? I talk to you, you talk back. I don't get the
same level of dialog with the supposed "God". It is completely one way, and then I'm left
to my own imagination or delusions for the rest.
Been there, done that, have no desire to repeat it.

As far as my having a problem with authority? You're 100% correct. Authority is not to
be trusted, and authority cares nothing for the individual. I have had it dealing with
various authorities in the government -- child snatching social workers, gestapo police
with a "arrest first, ask questions later" attitude, and the like. The police authority lies
through its teeth -- I've seen and experience this first hand. Child-protective authorities
are inept and insane -- and I've experienced this first hand.

Authorities must be kept in check and not allowed to run rampant. At least I have some
measure of hope of dealing with these earthy authorities, and as a last resort, I can
always run.

But now, you are telling me that I should just blindly trust an extra-universal "authority"
-- one that I would have no control or influence over whatsoever, were one to exist. Any
conscious being(s) with THAT much power would scare the willies out of me!
Fortunately, there is no reason to suppose such a frightening "authority" exists.

No one was there for me in the beginning. It was just me and my books. That's all I
needed. It taught me to be self-reliant and independent. These qualities are fierce within
me, now, having served me well for most of my lifetime. You could drop me off nearly
anywhere in the civilized world with just the clothes on my back and in a year or two I'd
be doing well. I have built myself from the bottom up, and can do so again at any time.

  Bob:
  > b) God gave us a moral law that reflects His
  > character and is good for individuals and for society;

  Fred:
  I don't need anyone to define morals for me. Empathy is all I need
  to determine my "moral compass", as it were. Through empathy, all
  things moral become plainly obvious.

  Bob:
  I think you mean to say here that you don't want anyone to define
  morals for you. It's that authority issue again rearing up its ugly head. I
  don't want just anyone defining my morals for me either, but the God
  of Scriptures (please do not read the God of COBU here), my heavenly
  Father, gives me guidelines and pearls of wisdom so as to live my life to
  the fullest -- so I can know joy, peace, and fulfillment -- and so can
  you.

I seek out my own joy and peace, and create my own morals. If you want to follow the
"morals" of men from 2000+ years ago, more power to you. I prefer to think about
everything and decide and choose for myself -- taking on the responsibility for myself
and those I care about, rather than abrogating that responsibility to someone else.

  Bob:
  > c) He expects us to conform to this law for our own benefit as
  well as for His glory; and

  Fred:
  Problem is, there is no way to distinguish this from the writings of
  another man. And I am fully capable of establishing my own "laws" to
  follow.

  Bob:
  Again you're starting with a false assumption when you say, "there
  is no way to distinguish this from the writings of another man." Garbage
  in,garbage out. Why not rather begin with something like, "What do the
  Scriptures say and why?"

Because I don't trust the scriptures, right? They are NOT my standards of truth. They are
your standards of truth. I must claw, test, search, and reason my way to the truth -- not
trust someone else to tell me.

  Throw away those old COBU lenses with the
  Stewart audio when you pick up the Bible.

I can distinguish between COBU rhetoric and the bible. I see clearly how Stewart used
what is already there in the bible to further his cause.

   It wasn't easy when I first
  began to do that back in '89, but I'm so glad now that I can
  distinguish much better the voice of God from the voice of Stewart.
 

  Bob:
  > d) He gives us His Spirit to empower us to live in a way that's
  pleasing to Him and fulfilling to ourselves.

  Fred:
  That is just an emotional "rah-rah". We already have the power
  within ourselves to do great "good" and great harm. The choice always has
  been ours. Religionism serves merely as a context to achieve some of
  ones' internal greatness. The context is unnecessary -- what is necessary is
  self-esteem and self-reliance.

  Bob:
  Preoccupation with self is what alienated us from God to begin with.
  I do believe in having a healthy self-esteem, but I disagree with you on
  what the source of that is. God didn't create you and me to live for
  self, but to live for Him.

God didn't create you and me. Our parents did -- they got the process initiated, and the
rest is a matter of genetics and embryogensis. Genotypes are converted into phenotypes
by a very structured process that roughly traces our evolutionary development.

   Now here's the paradox: when we lose our lives, we find
  them. When we stop pursuing happiness, then we will find happiness.

I do not pursue happiness -- directly. I set certain goals for myself, and when I achieve
them, I get a sense of fulfillment. I am most happy when I engage in learning and in
helping others. I take my fate and my future into my hands and create hope for myself and
for those I care about.
As far as selfishness, we are all ultimately selfish -- it is an integral part and
construction of our human nature. The issue is whether or not the actions we take with
regards our selfishness helps others around us.

-Fred

  =========================================================
From: Logbearer@aol.com
 

In a message dated 1/20/00 2:17:34 fred@mitchellware.com, you wrote:

<<You have rushed in with your favorite
god; you are totally ignoring what I said: That there's an
infinite number of possibilities.>>

There may be an infinite number of possibilities, but there is only one
reality.  If there is no God, about 95% of the world's population throughout
history has been defining it's existence on the non-reality of spiritual
identity.  If there is a God, only one explanation is accurate, only one
answer is correct.  There cannot be as many valid explanations of the true
nature of God as there are people who care to propose a theory.  If you
really want to know, sincerely, then there is only One who can answer you,
only One you should reasonably ask.  The proof is in the answer, if you are
willing to listen.
                                    In Christ, Amy
=============================================

     Awesomely well said sister!!
=========================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>

Raynard wrote:

  From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>

       No, I'm an atheist. I hold that the existence of any
       extra-universal being to be extremely unlikely,
       infinitesimal. I'd hate to have to be in your shoes when you
       are weepingand gnashing your teeth as you will stand before
       a Holy God that desires that none should perish.
 

No, I would hate to be in your shoes, or rather in your death bed, when you realize that
you wasted your entire life on an empty promise. Well, I suppose you'll never quite
realize that, because your brain will shut down forever.

I play the probabilities. It is highly unlikely that any type of "god" exists, and even if one
does, still unlikely to be the Christian god. We are talking infinitesimally small
probabilities here.

I mean, would you bet your life on the lottery? I wouldn't.

-Fred
==================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

Hi, Fred,

I realize that I don't answer every point you make and I certainly want
to give you the freedom to not respond to what I write. Still, I noticed
in the dialog below, unless I missed it, you didn't respond to this point
I made in my last post: "Okay, now it's your turn. You made the claim
that 'there is no way to sense or determine their [God's] presence.'
Prove this statement -- and no diversion tactics either." I know in the
heat of debate, it's easy for me and others to overstate our cases, so
I'm guessing that's what happened here. No biggie.

I also noticed that you didn't respond to the 12 points I made for the
evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, although I do acknowledge that
we've been back and forth on it already. Of course, if you want time to
research the subject, I think that would be a great idea. I do hope that
you will approach it as an honest skeptic rather than as an evangelist or
apologist for agnosticism/atheism. There's a big difference. To be honest
with you, I'm not really a debater; I'm more of a "reasoner" if there's
such a word. I'd like to keep these conversations going if we can really
reason together and consider one another's opinions. It may appear
otherwise, but I don't really get much out of proving anything to
anybody. I've done what I've done in the hope that you will come to know
the God who loves you and His Son who died for you.

I do appreciate again your honesty about the issue of authority. Let me
reciprocate in kind. I grew up under an authoritarian father until I was
18. At that time, I left my family to move in to the Lamb House under the
rule of another authoritarian leader, Jim Greiner. Then I moved in to the
Young Sheep House under the authoritarian leadership of Stewart. (I hope
you don't think I'm a masochist!) The point is that I know how authority
can be and often is abused by those in power. Jim and Stewart, however,
didn't accurately represent God to us. Their God was indeed frightening
in a wrong way. In COBU I rarely felt assured that I was pleasing Him or
that He would accept me into heaven. I've found the real God to be much
different. I pray that you would take the time to read the Bible and
learn of Him, for He is "gentle and humble in heart, and you will find
rest for your soul." (By the way, I've forgiven my father, Jim, and
Stewart. I read Jim's letter on Mike's web site and was very moved by
it.)

On your statement, "Then break the circle by showing clear, convincing,
unquestionable proof," I can't make a man see what he doesn't want to
see. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If you limit yourself
to accepting only the types of evidences that you want, then you probably
will never get them. On the other hand, if you open your mind to
receiving other types of evidences such as archaeological and historical
ones, then they are out there for you to research. I and others on this
list have given you some starting points already. I hope you show you're
really an honest skeptic by researching these evidences instead of
discarding them as just another "crackpot theory" to use your term.

You also wrote, "But now, you are telling me that I should just blindly
trust an extra-universal 'authority.'" Fred, if nothing else, I think
I've shown you through the last few weeks that my faith is not a blind
one -- it rests on evidences which you have yet to honestly investigate
-- nor would I ever call you or others to blindly trust in anyone. This
statement is pejorative and, in my opinion, driven more by emotions than
by intellect. Of course, I respect your emotions as well as your
intellect -- I'm just saying that your statement is not accurate.

Hey Fred, is it "faith or feelings," brother? Be direct! (LOL!)

Bob San Pascual

========================================================
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>

I mean, would you bet your life on the lottery? I wouldn't.
-Fred
 

I am not playing the lottery with my life here...last I checked we were
not speaking of gambling, but faith which is not a gamble. I know that
I know that I know, that The Blood of Jesus has set me free.

The Blood of Jesus can set you free as well.

The Blood of Jesus can make you whole again.

Best regards de Raynard & Lena Merritt
===============================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>

Today I have a special guest contribution to the discussion on proof for
skeptics, and Fred. From our brother Rob Machell, it is a little
lengthy but worth the read. ML
 

December 30th, 1999
Dear brothers and sisters on the ex-COBU onelist;

Concerning 'proof' for the existence of God and the lordship of Christ for
skeptics:

I would like to say that there is no proof positive to satisfy the empirical
demands of an unbeliever, and that the 'proof' for Jesus is ultimately a
matter of individual spiritual experience.  Does not the Bible itself tell
us in the first place that "without faith it is impossible to please Him"?
If he wanted to, God could crack open the sky and shake his fist at everyone
on the planet; but this is not the way he purposes to do things.  Instead he
has given human beings plenty of roan so that he might test them from behind
the scenes and ultimately judge them for their choices.  But he does call
us, and some more persistently than others.
When I was being 'drawn', it was through the realities of my own human
circumstances.  I was unhappy with myself in ways that I could not fully
identify and I knew I needed something; and I was increasingly serious about
trying to find it, even though I did not know what that something was.  But
I did NOT think it was Christianity or anything that remotely resembled the
insipid religion of my father, a part-time liberal Protestant minister.
There were much trendier things to try on for size at the time, and I was
attracted to them instead.
I had met Skip O'Neill a couple of times before he became a Christian; and
when I ran into him again in the very early days of the fellowship I began
to hang around, at first because of my regard for him personally, but
increasingly because I was fascinated by what all the brothers and sisters
seemed to have in common.  But I knew I could not share it with them because
I simply did not believe as they did, and nothing any of them said was able
to change that for me for nearly a year, as I came and went as an outside
observer.  I must have visited 128 S. Church St. and later 137 a total of
more than fifty times in this basic state of mind.  I finally reached a
point of decision when I considered the statement of Jesus someone showed
me, "If any man's will is to do his (God's) will, he SHALL KNOW if my
teaching is from God (or not)." As this was being applied, the proposition
for me was that the God of Jesus Christ was willing to meet me half way.  I
knew that I was a sinner and I wanted to become a different person if I
could; I was willing to commit everything to him if he would 'keep his end'
and reveal himself in my life in some way that would dispel the
uncertainties of my mind.  It was like putting out my arm beside a moving
locomotive to see if anyone would reach down and pull me on board; my life
was swept up and within three weeks I was transformed into a zealous
fanatic!
I could try to delineate the specifics of what took place that changed
things for me, but it would not qualify as proof for the existence of God by
any rational set of criteria and would be less meaningful on the whole for
someone who does not know me personally than it would be for someone who
does know me.  Nevertheless, I am convinced it is vain imagination to think
that anything we can say amounts to more than giving 'testimony' to those
who do not know the Lord.  This is not to say that faith is contrary to
reason, nor that it is inappropriate to defend the faith from the attacks of
critics; but the most brilliant apologetics can do no more than 'neutralize'
opponents of the Gospel, bringing them 'back to square one!.

My experiences in the aftermath of my personal compact with the Lord
convinced me of his presence in my life; but five months down the road, one
of the unique events of my Christian life took place.  I was in Pottstown,
PA with two sisters where we had a temporary mini fellowship'.  The sisters
lived in the first floor apartment where we invited people to come meet with
us, while I lived in a separate rented roan on the second floor.  In the
middle of the night, one of our visitors from the evening before came back
very angry and a little bit drunk, pounding on the door.  The sisters tried
to tell him to go away, but he pushed his way inside and started a very ugly
scene.  I woke up when I heard the cxx=tion, and quickly realized who it
was, what he wanted and what would happen if I went downstairs.  I knew that
he was seeking to shake off the conviction of the Holy Spirit by
intimidating us.  If he could make us afraid of him, then he did not have to
respect or believe the Word that he had heard through us a few hours
earlier.  I knew that when I went downstairs it would be mano a mano, but
I could not leave my sisters alone; and I knew that I was being called to
put my body between this man and Jesus.
When I got to the bottom of the stairs, he immediately grabbed me and
slammed my back against the wall; which prompted me to say, "Danny, why
don't you either just get saved right now, or beat me up right now!" Somehow
we ended up in the kitchen, where he used his karate techniques to punch,
kick and flip me around for ten or fifteen minutes.  I made no effort to
defend myself, nor even to avoid his blows; though I answered him 'blow for
blow' with the Gospel.  He was holding back, pulling all his punches--
hoping, I believe, to hurt me, but not to injure me. (As it turned out, I
had only one small bruise the next day, and I went to work like nothing had
happened.)
When he finally gave up on me, I found myself in the doorway between the
kitchen and the dining room praying.  The sisters were in the dining room
also praying.  He was standing over me, noticeably shaking as he tried to
figure out what he was going to do next.  Then he said, "Becky, stand up!
I'm going to rape you!" He stepped over me to get through the doorway; then
as he took another step toward her, I began to speak in tongues, my voice
seeming to me like a loudspeaker.  At first he nearly jumped out of his
skin.  Then he tried to hold my mouth shut with his hand, and then to hold
my jaw closed with an arm-lock around my head; but he could not.  Then he
suddenly broke and his spirit surrendered; and when I finished speaking in
tongues a minute later, he waited as the three of us continued to pray for a
long five or ten minutes.  He nearly prayed with us before he left, and he
tried to close the door behind himself and came back in several times before
he did leave.  Then he came back every evening for about a week and brought
a Bible with him, and also brought a friend with him who likewise brought a
Bible; and he told every visitor who came to pay attention to what we said.
It is the one and only time in my Christian life that I have ever spoken in
tongues.  The scripture comes to mind, "Tongues are a sign... for
unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but
for believers." The most remarkable part of this story, accordingly, is what
took place about two months earlier in Allentown.  In the living room at
137, late at night after everyone else had left or gone to bed, three
brothers were laying hands on me and praying for me to receive 'the baptism
of the Spirit'.  For more than an hour, two of these brothers were speaking
in tongues like it was champagne being sprayed around the locker room after
a World Series championship victory.  Three interpretations were spoken
personally to me, the prime one coming in two distinct halves that seemed at
the time to bear no particular relation to one another.  The first half of
this message began with the words, "By your faith this gift has been given
to you;" and the second half began with the words, "I am your Shepherd and
you are my sheep, and I am watching over my sheep to protect them." Nothing
whatsoever happened to me that night, and I was utterly bewildered at how
this could make sense in light of the words, "this gift has been given to
you," especially when I could see the ecstatic experience being given to my
brothers right in front of me.  But everything made sense when this word
ultimately came to pass in Pottstown, and the significance of the two halves
and how they belonged together as one prophecy was truly amazing to me!
Several years later, in the days when most of us were collected together in
New York City, my wife was experiencing physical discomfort.  She was
diagnosed as having a cyst "the size of an orange" on one of her ovaries,
and was scheduled for surgery to remove the cyst.  Interestingly, another
sister who lived in our building and who had the same first name as my wife
(Gerri Falkinbridge), was also diagnosed with the very same problem and was
scheduled for the same surgery with the same surgeon for the same morning.
I was on my way to look for my wife in the post-op recovery area, when I
found her doctor going out as I was coming in.  He rather nervously informed
me that no surgery had been performed.  When I asked about the cyst, he
said, "The cyst is gone." When I replied, "You mean it disappeared?" he
answered, "There was no cyst," and he hurried away.  The other Gerri was
also allowed to wake up in the recovery area with no surgery having been
performed because no cyst could be found, although one had apparently been
there a few days earlier.  This was not nearly the most dramatic example of
healing that I have ever had occasion to report, but it is one that involved
me personally. (The most dramatic would probably either be the case of
George Davis, the guidance counselor from Abington High School near
Philadelphia who had his pacemaker disappear from his chest, along with his
heart condition, when Kathryn Kuhlmann touched him, or the case of David
Pellitier, a little boy who could see through a plastic eye, and also remove
the plastic eye and see with nothing.  I shook hands with him after a
demonstration and could plainly see the empty socket in his head, and Jol)n
Griffith took part in setting up the demonstration by covering his 'good'
eye with a gauze pad and wrapping it around with medical tape.) The surgeon
in question was not prepared to refer to the incident as miraculous, but
instead he implied that it was a case of misdiagnosis, (actually,
double-misdiagnosis, I should emphasize).  But I do know that my wife could
not sit up in bed without pain before she went in for surgery, and that
afterward, though nothing was done, she was fine!
Some of us will remember the emphasis Stewart Traill placed on miracles in
the early going, and his claim that he spent seven years investigating
reports of miraculous healings before he was ultimately persuaded through
these investigations to become a Christian.  He used to contend that by
applying scientific method to the phenomena, it is possible to arrive, not
at absolute proof for the validity of the Gospel claims, but at "a high
degree of probability that a rational person could not ignore." The argument
is analogous to saying that for lightning to strike the same place twice is
mathematically unlikely, but that as lightning continues to strike the same
place repeatedly, a cause and effect relationship between the phenomenon and
something at ground zero becomes increasingly reasonable to conclude.  That
something at ground zero, in the case of miracles, is people asking Jesus
for healing.  The most important Bible verse concerning miracles, according
to Stewart's erstwhile presentation of the argument, is John 15;24 ("If I
had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no
sin; but now they have seen and also hated both me and my Father."), because
it was crucial to this approach that the Bible should make exclusive claims
regarding the 'works' of Jesus.
I should hasten to say that I have thought about these things, and that it
has been my conclusion for many years now that scientific method does not
lend itself very readily to the study of miracles.  But I would not dismiss
the value of these anecdotes as testimonies, nor that of any of the personal
things I have mentioned.  As far as the Bible itself is concerned, I am ever
increasingly aware of similar difficulties with attempts to appeal to
certain things as 'proofs'.  For the surface aspect of the Word, far from
being smooth and flawless, is as scarred and pock-marked as the surface of
the moon!  What I mean to say is that as far as literal things are
concerned, God has left his Testimony vulnerable.
I will not try to do it now, but it would be a worthwhile exercise just to
enumerate the various categories of Biblical pitfalls.  The Book of Proverbs
says, "Every word of God proves true." But if this is intended to refer to
every statement of Scripture as it might be taken at face value, we are all
in big trouble, brothers and sisters!!  If you do not already know that this
is so, then search the internet (if you dare) for some of the
Christian-slayers that are out there who have web-sites devoted to finding
fault with Christian doctrine in general and the Bible itself in particular.
  See how the creators of such publications as The Skeptical Review and
Biblical Errancy take delight in eating Christian authors and luminaries for
lunch.  A couple of years ago, I was in a book store and happened upon a
magazine named Skeptic.  As I skimmed it, I noticed an advertisement for a
recently published book which I then found nestled among the Bibles in the
religion section of the store, entitled, Bible Prophecy: Failure or
Fulfillment?  It is an in-depth and full-length assault on the Evangelical
belief that Bible prophecy and its fulfillments are tangible proofs for the
faith.  The author focuses his attacks especially upon two particular works
by Christian apologists, Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
and Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
My personal confidence in what I have come to see and believe is not based
on the value of Scripture as an apologetic tool, because I am aware that the
Word of God does not cooperate with the superficial expectations of
believers and skeptics alike!  "For God speaks to man in one way, and in
two, though man does not perceive it." It is not the "precept upon precept"
and the "line upon line" of the outer shell, therefore, but rather the
underlying pattern of that living kernel within that continues to command
my attention and to keep me in awe of what God has put in place.  For there
is a design to the language of Scripture that transcends the multiplicity of
its human authors and the expanse of generations over which they were
separated from one another; but this is a subtle aspect of its physiognomy,
disclosing its beauty through prolonged familiarity.
I am convinced that God is not disturbed when skeptics imagine they have
prevailed over the credibility of his Word; the Bible was not written for
them in the first place, at least not directly.  But the Bible is written
for the sake of those who already know and who therefore should already be
listening.  "Whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the
law." Yes, we should do the best we can to answer the challenges of
unbelievers; but we should also remember that the Holy Spirit IS the
knowledge of God, and it is He himself who will give to each and every person
He calls what that individual needs in order to believe, beginning with the
conviction of sin.  After all, what human being was ever truly dedicated to
following the dictates of reason, anyway?
 
 

Yours in Christ,
Rob Machell
 
 

Post Script(1/15/2000)-- The text of the preceding message was written out
longhand over New Year's weekend, but I was still in the process of typing
it up when I was shown some more recent exchanges that are a continuation of
what originally prompted me to write.  I feel that it is appropriate for me
to comment in the following way:
I too am the parent of a mentally handicapped child.  My daughter, Jillian,
is now seventeen years old, and in addition to her moderate retardation has
a number of physical problems.  Jillian is adopted, and was placed with
Gerrie and me when she was six days old, although the adoption did not
become official until shortly before her first birthday.  We knew by then
that she was developmentally delayed, and we might have backed out of the
adoption; but this was out of the question for both of us.  When Jillian was
about nine months old, we were sent to DuPont Institute in Wilmington,
Delaware where a variety of tests were conducted in an attempt to determine
the specific cause of her problems.  A number of things were ruled out (such
as fetal alcohol syndrome and chromosome abnormality), but nothing tangible
was found.  No medical information could be obtained from her birth-mother
(whose relatives told the adoption agency that her whereabouts were
unknown), but many years later we were contacted by one of those relatives
who eventually informed us that Jillian's birth-mother had been on drugs
during her pregnancy.  Two weeks from now, Jillian will undergo her fourth
round of major surgery, a "decompression" of the chiari malformation of her
brain stem, which will hopefully relieve a number of symptoms, including the
cyst the length of her back which is progressively hollowing out her spinal
cord from within. (When Jillian was eleven, her spine began to curve; and it
was discovered that she had four --and now it is five-- separate but related
conditions.) Jillian was three years old when Gerrie and I separated.  I
have always been thankful that our custody agreement provides for me to see
Jillian two evenings every week in addition to every other weekend.  Jillian
has an adorable personality and is the personification of sweetness and
innocence; and although she does have her difficult moments, she is
generally very pleasant to be with.  But it still does require a great deal
of patience to care for her, and she still cannot accomplish even the most
basic of life skills without help.
Now I find it remarkable that any parent of any child under any
circumstances would make the following claim: "I consider that I have done
all that is humanly possible (and even a bit more) to give my son every
possible chance to progress." Even discounting the obvious hyperbole of
claiming to be "more" than perfect, the absolute nature of such an assertion
raises my suspicion.  I know I could never make such a statement, and it
seems to me that the most dedicated parent is the one who is painfully aware
of his own shortcomings.  I don't mind admitting that sometimes I feel like
I'm not much more than a glorified baby-sitter; and although I have found
that it is natural for others, when they see me with my daughter, to offer
words of praise and encouragement (and I do appreciate their good will in so
doing), I know within myself that there is plenty of room for improvement.
(Just for example: it is easier for me at any given time simply to do those
basic everyday things for her; but for my daughter to progress to the
greatest possible extent of her own potential, it is better for her if I
make her do things for herself.  But this requires immeasurably more
patience on my part, and sometimes I take the shortcuts.) The above quoted
statement, therefore, strikes me as being argumentative more than honest,
the words of someone who is seeking to "justify himself rather than God"--
which scripture reference brings us to the Book of Job.
I wonder if our brother Fred was conscious of the similarity of his words to
a particular verse in the Bible when he said: "Don't give me the 'eternal
life'. Just heal my son.  Fix his mind so that he
may lead a normal life.  That is ALL I ask.  I would gladly give myself up
for infinite torture just so my son can have a finite normal life.  'And the
Kid looked down upon the lone Ant making that plea, laughed, and just made
life harder... "' This metaphor about the kid and the ant reminds me of Job
9:23-- "If the scourge slays suddenly, He (God) laughs at the plight of the
innocent." I believe this is one of the most arresting descriptions
pertaining to God's personal character to be found in the Bible; and while
it may be tempting for some to dismiss this as the rantings of Job, we
should remember that God himself, at the end of the book, confirms the
statements of Job about Him, saying to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My wrath is
aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what
is right, as My servant Job has."
So in what sense does God "laugh" at the plight of the innocent?  In the
sense that he as Creator reserves to himself the right to do as he sees fit
with his own creation, without regard to the hopes and sensibilities of
those who exist in the flesh.  "The Lord sits in the heavens, and he does
whatever he pleases;" and this very often means that he uses certain vessels
as signs and examples for the sake of others.  As Isaiah puts it, "Shall the
clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?"' And as Paul
elaborates, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same
lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?  What if God,
DESIRING TO SHOW (that is, desiring to set an example and to use as a
sign)..."
While it is true that Job was right in the things he said about God, this
does not mean that he was right in the totality of what he was saying.  From
the niamnt he began to speak in the presence of his friends, it was manifest
that his attitude about faith was wrong.  There is nothing in Scripture to
indicate that Job's friends were insincere in their actions when they sought
to comfort him (sitting on the ground with him for seven days and seven
nights), nor that it was improper later on that they sought to reprove him.
But Job correctly perceived early on that they did not want to believe that
what was happening to him could happen to them ("you see my calamity, and
are afraid), and they sought to 'defend' God by insisting that Job was
guilty of deliberate sin and was concealing it.  When the young man, Elihu,
spoke up near the end ("I will answer you, and your friends with you"), he
was just as stringent with Job as the others had been, except that he
accepted Job's contention that he was not conscious of anything against
himself.  God himself was exacting with Job at the end, reinforcing the
words of Elihu as the thunder (the 'voice' of the Lord) confirms the flash
of the lightning (the warning of His messenger).
The inuediate context of Job 9:23 is as follows: "I am blameless,
yet I do not know myself; I despise my life.  It is all one thing; therefore
I say, 'He destroys the blameless and the wicked.' If the scourge slays
suddenly, He laughs at the plight of the innocent.  The earth is given into
the hand of the wicked.  He covers the faces of its judges.  If it is not
He, who else could it be?" This is Job's response to what Bildad the Shuhite
had said in the preceding chapter: "Behold, God will not cast away the
blameless, nor will He uphold the evildoers." Job was not wrong about God
when he said, "He destroys the blameless and the wicked." Does it not say
elsewhere in the scriptures, "For Your sake we are killed all day long; we
are accounted as sheep for the slaughter"?  The problem is with the spirit
in which Job speaks; and when he says, "It is all one thing," it is the
equivalent of saying, 'It makes no difference (whether one chooses
righteousness or wickedness),' and it is for this attitude that Job was
rebuked unsparingly by Elihu, who did so for Job's good.  Elihu said: "What
man is like Job, who drinks up scoffing like water, who goes in company with
evildoers (though not literally), and walks with wicked men?  For he has
said, 'It profits a man nothing that he should take delight in God."' These
exact words are not to be found in the recorded speeches of Job; but they
represent the essence of things that he did say, one of the salient
instances being the phrase already cited, "It is all one thing." Elihu also
said: "Do you think this to be just?  Do you say, 'It is my right before
God,' that you ask, 'What advantage have I? How am I better off than if I
had sinned?"' And again Elihu said: "Men of understanding will say to me,
and the wise man who hears me will say: 'Job speaks without knowledge, his
words are without insight.' Would that Job were tried to the end, because he
answers like wicked men.  For he adds rebellion to his sin; he claps his
hands among us, and multiplies his words against God."

By contrast to all of this, there are some who wish to believe that it
pleases God and that it does Fred a service when they pander to his scornful
attitude.  It sets my teeth on edge when I read such words as the following:
"Yes, Fred, I think you're mad at God-- and you have reason to be.  Go
ahead." Poor old Job!  What was God thinking?  Moreover, for the sake of
comparison, it should be observed that nowhere in his words is Job to be
found cheering on perversion!  As for me, I would prefer to imitate Elihu
who said: "The godless in heart cherish anger; they do not cry for help when
he binds them." And on the hopeful side: "He delivers the afflicted by their
affliction, and opens their ear by adversity." And I would say, Fred, that
having once committed your life to the Lord, you can expect him to take the
initiative in dealing with you, since he chastises every son whom he
receives.  You will not be treated merely as an outsider, regardless of
whether or not you remain committed to him.

The End
===============================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Brother Rob,
Awesome testimony of an Awesome God's providence in your life. Good to hear
from you brother.May the Lord continue to watch over you and may you
continue to grow in His grace.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve Saxton
=======================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>

Roy Clemmons wrote:

> >If I were God. Hmmm.... good question. Thanks, Steve! Let's see...
>
> >Firstly, there would be no natural disasters. No earthquakes, no
> >hurricanes, no tornadoes.
>
> Fred  - I loved your answer to this question.
>
> Actually, I re-read it and re-checked the author because
> because I just couldn't believe it was you who wrote
> it.

Believe it. Well, I hate pain and suffering, and if there were a way I
could end this for everybody, I would.

> What you described is just what God has planned for us.
> Your scenario is a picture of "paradise" - of what it
> will be like to live with God. Not only that, but
> it USED to be like this for us. Originally, in the
> beginning, mankind had this type of relationship
> with God and God and Man literally walked together
> through the Garden of Eden; just as you described.
> But, we rejected our loving God and despite his attempts
> to reconcile with us, we continued to do so.

As the legend goes. It would appear that many religions have this idea
of an earlier "paradise", that somehow we've fallen away from. Paradise
lost.

I'm not sure why such legends arise. I will have to give this some
thought and perhaps some research.

From an evolutionary standpoint (one I know you have trouble with), our
earlier forms did have it good -- swinging from trees laden with fruit,
life was very good. Then something happened. Some sort of caprice of
the environment, a separation, that caused some to be isolated from
"easy living". Therein began the evolution of what was eventually to
become man. We were forced out of the trees by nature so that we could
evolve and become smarter. But in so doing we lost that carefree
paradise we once had. I find this an interesting parallel to the many
legends. Does it mean anything? I doubt it. But I can't help from
wondering.

> Imagine your children rejecting you!

Happens all the time. But I know how to deal with that. I actually
expect my children to be independent-minded, and I do allow some level
of "rejection" to take place. I think it is more important for them to
learn to think for themselves rather than to please me at the drop of
every hand and foot. So far, I've had good results. My oldest daughter
-now 7-  has a very strong interest in math and science, which I
consider a milestone of an achievement, considering how women usually
choose not to be interested in these subjects.

But I think you are referring to a deeper level of rejection. A
rejection that only matters to authoritarian modes of governance, which
I don't like in the first place.

> The Fall of Man can also be described as the Fall from
> Perfection (expect to see a more detailed paper on this,
> soon). We chose to act in ways contrary from God's perfect
> nature.

Are we to be slaves to "God's" will, or follow our own? If we are to be
slaves, what's the point of existence? I am a strong "believer" in
self-determination and self-responsibility.

My daughter and I built a robot arm last night. Now, the robot does the
will of my daughter; she is, in some sense, "God" of that robot. It's
purpose is to do my daughter's bidding. (The real purpose is so that
she learns something about electrical and mechanical control systems,
but we'll ignore that for the moment). If the robot were sentient,
would it be "right" to limit the robot's mode of existence to just
serving my daughter's wishes?

> See, we had all that you described and we chose to
> walk away from it. But, we all have the opportunity
> to return to this state and to this kind of relation-
> ship with God.

Or we can return to that state for ourselves and be at peace.

> Essentially, you said that you would have an intimate
> relationship with your children ( something that you
> strive for now). But, what if your children reject
> that intimate relationship? What if they indulge
> in everything that is contrary to your nature?

Like what? My nature encompasses a lot. Actually, in a sense, my son is
like this -- but he is autistic, and so is not at "fault". As for my
daughters, my main wish for them is to be successful in life, and I
think I am preparing them for that. I suppose they could choose to not
be successful; to throw their lives away to drugs and the like. But if
that were to happen, I would be to blame. I would've had to allow
something to exist in their environment to lead to such destructive
behavior. I hold myself solely responsible for the physical and
psychological well being of my kids.

> I can tell you from experience and observation,
> your relationship will crumble. Sure, you will
> still love them - how can a parent ever cease
> to love their child? But you will not have a
> relationship with them because they reject you.

I think you are taking a sharp view on what normally happens when
children grow older and "find themselves". I have thought about this
already. I expect them to establish their own identity and not listen
to dear old dad so much. But consider that I have spent time WHILE
THEY'RE YOUNG giving them the tools to be able to take on this level of
independence. I don't see it as a rejection, per se, but a simple
"coming of age".

> And what can you do about it? Even if you had
> the power to make them love you, you wouldn't
> do it, because you would recognize that love and
> an intimate relationship requires fee will. You
> want them to choose to have a relationship with
> you. Am I right? There is no trust when it is enforced.

I don't understand why they would not want to have a relationship with
me, unless I've mistreated them in someway. My wife continues to have a
relationship with her parents, despite being somewhat mistreated by
them during her childhood. Since I am obviously not mistreating my
daughters, I don't anticipate any problems.

> As far as punishment goes. Think of it as payment.
> Here's 2 examples:
>
> 1. You and your wife go out for the evening and
> return home to discover that a lamp is broken.
> One of your children admits to breaking it while
> playing catch with a baseball in the house. You
> and your wife have strict rules about throwing baseballs
> in the house. Your choices are broad here, but let's
> say that you impose some kind of consequence for
> the child's disobedience. Your point is to teach the
> child that throwing baseballs in the house is not
> acceptable. In any case, you pick up your child,
> hug him or her, and explain that it is just a lamp.
> What's more important is that the child understands
> that his/her behavior must not be repeated.
> But who pays for the lamp? The broken lamp must still
> be accounted for and replaced. Continuing, say that your child
> continues to throw baseballs in the house or play with
> knifes and/or matches despite your instructions not to
> do so. What if you see them running through the house with
> scissors? What if this child becomes a teenager and turns
> to drugs and alcohol? What if this child breaks social
> laws and winds up in prison? These are things a parent
> fears. So what do we do? We don't let them mature without
> guidance. We impose rules that have consequences when
> they are broken. We teach them how to treat others.
> In all of this, we teach them how to love by our example.

Some of what you describe here reminds me of my own childhood! I did
set fire to the kitchen once, when I was 5 or 6 or so!

I do have rules in place for my kids, and the punishment is usually
something like a docked allowance or the like. But I don't have any
serious need to have to discipline my kids that often, with the
exception of my son -- but he's autistic, and is in a world far
removed. I have to deal with him differently than I do with the other
kids.

As far as parental fears, I have no such fears for my daughters,
because I am reasonably confident that I have done the right things
with regards to their school, neighborhood, and other environmental
factors that can effect child development. I do have a very deep
relationship with my oldest daughter, and one is in formation with my
youngest daughter (not even 2 yet). I just don't see the problems you
speak of happening with my kids. If such problems of that nature were
to happen, I would be to blame -- it would mean I've failed somewhere
in providing the nurturing environment and guidance for my kids.

And I don't believe in failure.

In fact, I have a "rule" -- lead, not push, draw, not pull. It is no
mistake that my daughter loves science and math so much -- I have
provided these things in her environment, from the time she was very
young. I am deliberately steering her in that direction, because I
think it will be the key to her life and happiness in the 21st century.
But it is a gentle lead, never a push, never forced. And so far, it has
worked splendidly.

> 2. A judge's son commits a crime - say speeding. The
> court waits and wonders what the judge will do. Will the
> judge impose a penalty on his child and uphold the law
> or will he free his son from the consequence because of
> his love for his son?

Actually, he should disqualify himself for reasons of conflict of
interest.

> When the judge renders the verdict,
> here is what he does. He sentences his son to the maximum
> fine and pounds his gavel. Thus, justice is served. Then,
> he rises up from the bench, removes his robe, steps
> down to the floor and walks over and hugs his son. Then
> he pays the fine, himself, thus demonstrating his love
> for his son. So, in this way, the judge upholds the law
> and maintains his integrity and demonstrates his love
> for his son and maintains the relationship.

Hmmm.... Not my approach, but I suppose that can work.

> God loves us and is trying to teach us so that we will
> not repeat the behavior that lead to our rebellion in
> the first place. But not only that. He went one step
> further. Through Jesus Christ, God's justice is served
> and our relationship with God is restored. The lamp
> is paid for and the penalty for our crime, our
> rebelliousness is atoned for. If we want a relationship
> with God, all we have to do is accept it. But if
> we continue to reject it, God won't make us love
> him - he realizes, as we do, that a relationship
> requires a trust that can only be obtained
> through choice.

I have one problem with your analogies. In the cases you give above,
the parents are there IN PERSON with their children. The children can
see and touch and dialog with their parents on a daily basis.
Obviously, this is not how your God treats us. If I were God, I would
be making frequent personal appearances with my "children" so there
would be no doubt about my existence. I would consider a lack of
personal appearance a dereliction of duty on my behalf. If I were off
somewhere to a foreign country to live, living my kids behind, I would
not be able to assure that my kids would grow up in a well-adjusted
manner. My personal, physical presence is required for that. Your God,
if he exists, could do the same, and that would solve a lot of problems
(and shut me up! :-)

> Fred, everything that you described has already been
> written about in the New Testament. The paradise you
> describe is what awaits all who accept God's gift of
> restoration.

But I have already restored myself, and I provide this environment for
my own children. Tears actually came to my eyes when I wrote that after
I realized what I was really saying.

> "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is
> your sting?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

I don't really care about death anymore. I mean, I would not want to
exist forever. Several lifetimes, perhaps, but after a fashion boredom
would set in. I'd much rather see all the pain and suffering in the
world come to an end than for me to "live forever." Keep the eternal
life. Fix my son's brain so that he may lead a normal life. End
suffering of children and others all over the world. A finite life of
peace is all I want for myself and everyone else. If you really spend
some time thinking about it, you would not want an infinite lifespan,
either.

> I hope that your children never rebel in a manner
> that destroys your relationship with them.

I do not plan to fail in this fashion.

> So many children, today, reject their parents because they
> never received appropriate guidance and nurturing
> from their parents.

If anything, I probably spend too much time nurturing my kids.
Sometimes I have to take back time for myself. And this is especially
the case with my new occupation.

> Teach them now while you can
> for there will come a day when they bear the
> fruit of the seeds you are planting now.

I have been doing this since they took their first breath on Terra
Firma.

> Roy
>
> If I were God, I would have lost patience with mankind
> long ago and simply destroyed us forever. But then
> conversations like this wouldn't occur and people
> wouldn't be here to debate my existence.

I know that feeling. I've had it often myself. But I consider that many
of the problems that exist today does so because of a lack of real hope
and self-esteem. If I were made a God today I would immediately begin
the long, slow, and hard process of fixing the problems with humankind.
I would do all that I have stated and then some.

-Fred
==========================================================
From: Nkcsigner2@aol.com

Dear Fred and anyone else interested - a good place to research the
"mythology" of how other cultures have similar stories to those found in the
Judeo-Christian views is a book called "Eternity In Their Hearts" by Don
Richardson, the same guy who wrote "Peace Child."  He looks at those legends
as a part of pre-venient grace within a culture by which to build a bridge to
the gospel.  Although I know you may not agree with the conclusions, Fred, I
know you will respect the guy's research as he has traveled the globe and
gone to places that Euro-Americans never have been before, and gathered a lot
of information in the oral tradition of tribal peoples.  Jim and I had the
privilege of meeting him when we were in Bible College years ago.  He was a
very practical and loving person, able to cut through religiosity in an
amazing way.
Nancy C.
=====================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>

There's a point in here I wish to address, because of it's intellectual worth.

Nkcsigner2@aol.com wrote:

> ...
> Nothing has value unless it is connected to a fixed standard.  You see that
> with art.  What is just a few swirls of paint on some stretched cloth derives
> the worth of millions of dollars by the value that people place on it.

I have to disagree with that. Nothing is "fixed", per se, except the speed of
light in a vacuum, and even at the quantum level that varies a bit.

The "value" a thing has is the value we humans choose to assign to it. There is
nothing especially 'fixed" with regards to art! Art has only the value that
someone with the money is willing to pay for it. Sometimes it's based on
uniqueness, and sometimes it's based on the notoriety of the artist. Usually
it's a combination of the two. What I see and feel when, say, I look at a fine work
of art -- like the La Jocounde at the Louvre, for example -- will be totally
different from what you experience.Even mathematics, which I once held to be absolute, is less so these days.

>  God places a high value on us.

Or, more importantly, we imagine that God places a high value on us in an
attempt to bolster our sagging self-esteems.

>  He allows us, by His Holy Spirit, to have
> spiritual communion with Him, to have a right view of our own worth.

Again, this is a very nice view to take if your self-esteem needs a boost.

> If you
> remove God from the equation of the Universe, you have no absolute, no fixed
> point whereby to start,  by which to measure the true worth of life.

I strongly disagree here. I, an atheist, value life quite a bit. In fact, I
value the Quality of Life even more than the life itself. To live in pain, to suffer,
to me, is the equivalent of what you call "hell", and in some extreme cases
death may be preferred. Of course, such is solely the decision and discretion of the
individual suffering the pain and hardship. I do not need a god to have value. I
create that value myself.

> Then it just becomes that arbitrary view of the common, and we are all in big
> trouble!

Yes, there is an arbitrary component to it, but why does that mean "we're in big
trouble?"

>  I agree from the Scriptures that the "teaching of kindness"  (see
> Prov. 31) is a primary "function" of women in particular.

Why "in particular?" Surely, kindness is something we all should strive for, men
and women, no? Wouldn't you want your husband to be kind and sensitive to your
needs? Or would you want to be ignored while he guzzles beer watching Monday
Night Football? :-) :-) :-)

>  This does not mean
> it is so effeminate that you dear Viking brothers cannot be kinder; it is
> clearly what God wants you to learn more about - that is all over His word.
> I believe, in our modern culture, you can say of the Christian faith that it
> "is sexist."  There are assigned values to the functions of each of the two
> genders, as I said "vive la difference!" (Sorry, the Christian faith is also
> exclusive, we are doomed to be the greatest of offenders: politically
> incorrect).

Are these "assigned gender roles" completely immutable? What is wrong with the
man being "househusband" while the woman works? I spend a lot of time with my
kids and enjoy it. Nurturing is NOT the sole provenance of women!

Now, one of the problems I see with fundamental Christianity is it's
inflexibility to adapt to today's world and needs. But ultimately the choice
resides with you.

> Does this mean either is of less value, either to God to to each
> other?  To say so is to invite the modern culture to continue assigning the
> devaluation of either, which can turn into an environment in which
> homosexuality flourishes, which is destructive to our whole society.

Please illustrate for me how homosexuality is "destructive to our whole
society." Who, pray tell, is hurt by it? What is wrong with living your life as you see
fit, and allowing others to live their lives as THEY see fit?

If anything, adultery can and does affect society in very concrete ways. It
hurts the other spouse and the kids when the practice is uncovered. It leads to
divorce and the whole onslaught of acrimony surrounding it. And is far more prevalent
than homosexuality. Yet no one seems concerned with adultery's impact on
society.Hmmm. What is wrong with this picture?

I see a ugliness here. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany. Find a minority
among you blame all the world's problems on them. My, oh my how we never learn.

> Tell me that the homosexual ideal society would be a healthy one for those of
> us who are straight?

Both cultures can and do commingle quite well! All the time!
And besides, let's talk about adultery and how that's healthy for society!

>  I shudder to think.  I have seen their publications!

What publications? You can't base everything on a publication!!! If that were
the case, then I could say all Christianity should be banned just on the basis of a
few publications of hate groups that have Christianity at their core.

>  When it comes to the term "acceptance" I do believe we need to accept that the flesh
> and blood person in front of us, whatever his or her difficulties or choices
> have led to, is still one for whom Christ died.  In this, we are COMMANDED to
> love, not the sin, not the twisted ideology, but the sinner.

Interesting choice of words. There is nothing ideological about what many gays
and lesbians go through in their daily lives. And many did not have a choice in
the matter, no more than you had a choice to be heterosexual.

In fact, the only time a choice is required is when you are forced or compelled
to do something DIFFERENT from your inner nature.

> ... I am just saying that when you
> work with a gay person, or have someone in your family that is such, or do
> business with someone, you can love them without supporting their wrong
> choice in this matter.

Like I said, many do not have a choice.

>  Their homosexuality is just one part of them, akin to
> other people you know that make other relationship mistakes.  It is not
> something they can't be healed from,

They aren't sick, so no healing is necessary. It is just their inner nature,
period.

And I'll skip the amateur psychology about "father issues" with gays. Gee,
someone else on another group claimed that atheism is a "father issue". What's
going on here? This is more victimization garbage. Blame the fathers. Yeah.

You know, I wish I were gay. Then I could REALLY feel the heat of your scorn!
Literally roasted over an open pit of fire! Snap, crackle, pop. Music to your
ears! Egad.

Another note: Most who "convert" to atheism from Christianity are usually rather
quiet about it, for all the reasons you can easily guess. Those who convert from
atheism to Christianity are noticed and cherished by Christians, who see it as
yet another affirmation point to their faith. You hear about it up and down the
aisles.

I suppose I am an "abomination" to some of you. One of you even told me, in so
many words, that I'm "going to hell" as an atheist. Well, since I don't believe
in hell, I don't care, but it does scare me a bit that such thoughts must be at
the back of your minds.

And so, when you interact with gays, what is going on at the back of your minds?
It only scares me to think. And how disingenuous to be thinking such thoughts
while putting on the facade of "friendship". Then you must constantly "remind"
each other that you "must love the sinner" even though you must "hate the sin!"
What a dichotomy!

Kinda reminds me of what goes on in the heads of some people who hate my dermal
chromatics, yet must "act polite" because of fear of reprisals, etc. They put up
a facade, but you know what? I pick that up right away. I am not fooled.

And so it goes when you "must interact" with a gay or lesbian. They pick up your
resentment, but say nothing about it. But what does that make you look like?
Well, I don't know. Ask them.

-Fred
Just can't keep my mouth shut, can I?
====================================================

> From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
>
>
> > >Fred said:
. What I really meant is that ALL of us show more loving and caring for
> our own children than the supposed "God" shows for his own "children."
> Steve replied:What could be more loving than eternal life with a perfect
body, no sorrow, pain or death, and freedom from sin evermore? Besides
having God Himself live with us-God Himself, Fred!
> > > Fred said:
> I keep and  protect my kids from harm WITHOUT manipulating and pulling their strings.
Cannot "God" do the same? How about natural disasters and diseases that we have
little or no control over? Why would a "loving God" allow children to be crushed
to death in earthquakes?
> Steve said:Are you saying that God does manipulate and pull our strings?
As for natural disaster and diseases. Life is hard indeed and not fair. It
was never meant to be fair. Death comes to everyone as you well know.
Everyone gets sick in this life. God does promise great rewards in Heaven at
the end of our sojourn here on earth. I have found from personal experience
that it is the hard times in my life that have made the greatest changes in
my life-positive changes. These have equipped me, fortified by God's grace
to be able to relate and help others who have come across my path. By being
able to empathize with them etc.
> > > Fred said:
> Secondly, I would speak and appear directly to those who worshipped me, so
that there would be no question about my intentions and agenda.
> Steve replied: To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear God does
exactly that.
> Fred said:
Thirdly, I would not want my "children" to worship me, per se, but to be in
awe of the universe and the world around them (I suppose I'm a modest God. :-)
> Steve replied: Why would you want to do away with something as incredibly
intimate as worshipping God? His universe and the stars and world do put me
in awe. Is it wrong to be in awe of the creator of those things as well?
Fred said:
> Fourthy, I would teach them to think for themselves. To be able to
discover the truth, how to recognize it and understand it.
> Steve replied:Where do get the idea that God keeps His children from doing
that? Jesus promises and delivers that we "will know the truth" and that
truth will set us free.
Fred said:
> Fifthly, there would be no such thing as death.
Steve replied:God promises that very thing Fred. Death will have no more
sting, and death will be done away with in Heaven.
Fred said:
> I would walk through the garden with my children. I would teach them many
> wondrous things, tell them many tales of old. I would eat and drink with
my children, and gently guide them to maturity. I would tenderly hold my
children in my arms if they ever felt down, to let them know everything will be all
> right, because I, their God, would make it so. I would whisper sweet
dreams in their ears at night, and fill their hearts with gladness during the day.
All this and much more, oh my children.
> Steve replied:I confess Fred that there have been times in my walk with
God that I have felt all those beautiful longings you describe so tenderly.
There have been times when God has made me feel like he was holding me
tenderly and caring for me just as you describe.
Fred said:
> You know, this is bringing tears of joy to my eyes, as I realize that this
is the way I am with my own children. But I won't be saying much about my
children anymore for a while, since certain elements here have taken it upon
themselves to verbally drag them through the mud. :-( :-( :-(
> Steve replied:May God give you grace to one day  be able to forgive Neil
for all the hurtful things he has said to you.
Fred said:
> Anyway, I throw the question back at you and all. What would each and
every one of you do if you were God? Now be honest! And I promise you -- the "Man
> Upstairs" won't strike you dead if He doesn't like your answer! :-)
> Steve replied. Lucifer wanted to be like God. I believe my wisdom is to
learn from his example.
> Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
>
>==============================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Fred said:"It is regrettable that the Bible was not as effective at stopping
some of history's greatest atrocities, such as the Spanish Inquisition, for
instance, as it was in propagating itself. And don't even get me started about the
horrors  that took place in the Dark Ages..."
Steve replied:Are you saying that science has never been misused to kill or
injure millions of people through out history? Should we do away with
science because of this? You can do better than argue from that angle Fred.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
====================================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Fred said:"No one is pure. And you have to admit that Christianity is high
on the list of WORST OFFENDERS. Islam is also high on that list -- I am well aware of
that.Actually, I not sure of the two which is the worst."
Steve replied: Actually Fred, they don't even come close to the murderous
devastation that communism has brought to the world stage. This has been
documented.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
==========================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Fred,
Steve said:
> But none of their holy men died on the cross for the sins of the whole
world like Jesus Christ.
Fred said:
You just don't get it, do you? Each religion has something unique about
it --uniqueness does not a truth make. And "sin" is decidedly a Christian
concept, anyway.
Steve replied:
Not so fast my friend. You are going to try to put Jesus' death on the cross
on a par with anything that all of the other religions have to offer? Fred,
give me just one example from any of the other major or minor religions that
had anyone coming close to being crucified as an atonement for the sins of
billions who hadn't even been born yet, not to mention those who spit on
Him, pulled out His beard, gambled for His clothes, and scourged His back
till His flesh literally hung in ribbons. Besides beating His face so badly
that He could hardly be recognized as a human being. And then saying "Father
forgive them, for they know not what they do".As for sin, it has been around since Adam.
Forgiveness of sin because of a Savior is a decidedly Christian concept.
Fred said:"I know what you are trying to do, Steve, and I appreciate the
effort. But it is no more possible for me to "come to Christ", as you put it, than it is for
you  to believe in Santa Claus. In some real sense, I have slipped outside of
> Humanity and see Humanity for what it really is. Just like you have
slipped outside of Childhood and see Childhood for what it really is. Just as you
cannot  go back to believing in Santa Claus, I cannot go back to believing in your
> Christ."
Steve replied:With man it is impossible, but with God all things are
possible.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
====================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

Hey, Steve and Fred,

I like this conversation you two have going. Fred, I admire your love for
your children and the way you expressed it. And Steve, I think you're
right on the mark with your responses.

I would like to add to what Steve said about suffering and the problem of
evil. This is probably the toughest question for any Christian to answer,
and I don't pretend to know all the answers or to be able to "defend" God
here. Instead, I simply want to add a thought from my experiences and
observations.

I grew up and still live in New York City and I know that it is next to
impossible for even the best of parents here to protect their children
from every possible harm. Even though most people would say that I was a
"good kid," I got into several fights during my childhood and teenage
years and got hurt a little bit, though never seriously, thank God. And
although I don't advocate fighting except in self-defense, and only as a
last resort, I do look back and realize how being allowed by God to go
through those experiences made me tougher.

The point is that God allows us to go through unpleasant experiences in
life in order to forge character in us. Looking back, I would not want to
have been protected from people who started fights with me because I
would not have developed any toughness by hiding behind my mother's
apron. God is not unloving when He allows us to go through the fire of
trials -- it's actually the other way around. I believe one of the
reasons He does it is in order to prepare us for the tougher times ahead.

In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
=====================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>

This is what remains of my reply. I wrote more, but unfortunately, the
e-mail program crashed before I had a chance to save it.
======================================================================
Robert San Pascual wrote:

  Fred:
  Ok, Bob, you tell me: Just how do you sense or measure
  the
  presence of your God in an objective manner?

  Bob:
  Fair enough. I'll answer your question as honestly as
  I can, and afterwards I have a question for you that I'd like you
  to answer as honestly as you can.
          I sense the presence of God by answered
  prayers, a fulfilled and joyful life (I'm not claiming "happiness" as the world
  defines it, but what the Bible calls joy), peace, assurance of eternal life,
  hope, meaning and purpose, and significance. I'm sure you'll chalk all
  of this up to  psychological phenomena, but as I said, this is honest, from the heart.
  Is it objective? No. Is it real? It's as real as anything in life.

The experience your mind creates from all of this for you is real --
that's about all we can be sure of, right?

          Okay, now it's your turn. You made the claim
  that "there is no way to  sense or determine their [God's] presence." Prove this
  statement -- and no diversion tactics either.

We have instruments that can sense individual quanta in magnetic
fields, electromagnetic radiation, and electric charges. For a god to
exist of the nature you suppose, that "supernatural" force would have
to interact with ordinary matter. That supernatural force would have
to interact with your brain, causing changes in firing patterns of your
neurons, right? Otherwise, what would be the point?
If such a supernatural realm were to exist, one would suppose there
would be all kinds of stray interactions that would be very easy to
detect. Especially at energy levels high enough to alter neural activity,
which is fairly high, considering.
Thus, we SHOULD be able to detect these anomalies with our most
sensitive instruments. So far as I know, no such reliable and
repeatable detection has been made.
Also, there is no firm basis to suppose that such supernatural forces
should ONLY interact with the brain and not the surroundings.
Also, considering that there are 6 billion brains on this planet, that's a
lot of energy we're talking about here. Such energy levels cannot go
undetected forever. Some anomalies should show up in experiments
SOMEWHERE.
So, this is to say that we have not detected any manifestations of
"supernatural" forces.
As far as "proving", you have to understand the nature of proof. I can
say to you, "prove to me that the moon is NOT made of green cheese."
Would you be able to do it? No. Would that mean you would have to
consider green cheese a serious possibility? While you cannot
directly "prove" that the moon is NOT made of "green cheese", you
can say that it is highly unlikely. Infinitesimal. You would also apply
our current understanding of the formation of the solar system to cast
serious doubt on the "green cheese" conjecture. You can also look at
the nature of green cheese and how it is made, etc. How may cows
would you need to produce a chunk of green cheese the size of the
moon? How would such a thing be constructed?  Etc.
Now, lets look at what it would take to have a "god" that exists
outside of our universe AND be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful".

ALL-KNOWING GOD:
What is meant by "all-knowing"? That this god-being knows
everything? Everything in the universe? Down to the position and
momentum of every particle?
Assuming such a being had a way to get around the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, how big would that being's brain have to be to
be all-knowing? I think we can safely assume, due to the storage
requirement and complexity, that the size must be AT LEAST the size
of the known universe.
If we allow for compressibility of information (i.e. no need to know
the EXACT position of each and every particle, but a reasonable
statistical approximation) then perhaps we may reduce the size
requirements of the brain somewhat -- say the size of several
galaxies.
Clearly, such a brain would have to exist outside of the realm of
known physics -- our physical laws dictates that a structure that size
would collapse in on itself to become several rather large black
holes. Oops.
So, lets say that this god-being exist in a different universe that would
allow for a brain of such size and magnitude. Ok. Now we have a
whole new universe whose physics differs from ours. This introduces
a new level of complexity, one much greater than the current universe
we now know. The same "questions of origin", etc. that arise with our
universe must now be applied to this one. So, we're back where we
started from.
ALL-POWERFUL GOD:
What is meant by "all-powerful"? The power to do absolutely
anything? That is, the power to manipulate and control matter and
energy in our universe to any desired extent?

-Fred
=====================================

From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

Hi, Fred,

You wrote, "The experience your mind creates from all of this for you is
real -- that's about all we can be sure of, right?" I previously gave you
several objective evidences from archaeology, history, etc. What I gave
you in the last post was subjective evidences to supplement the objective
ones. I hope you'll take both types into account as you examine the
historicity of Jesus and the evidences for His resurrection.
        An illustration: If you were to sit in a jury in a trial in which a man
was accused of murder, you wouldn't limit yourself to just the
"scientific" evidences in your decisionmaking process. You would also, in
addition -- not in place of -- listen to "subjective" testimonies and
other types of evidences. If there were little or no scientific evidences
(and I'm just saying this for argument's sake, so there's no need to
argue whether or not there is always scientific evidence in any given
situation) you would have to rely on other types of evidences to make a
determination.
        God in His sovereignty chose to leave us whatever evidences we have; He
didn't give you what you wanted. You can use that as an excuse to not
believe in Him and show yourself to be a dishonest cynic or you can take
what's there and examine it honestly and prove yourself to be an honest
skeptic.
        On my asking you to prove your statement, "there is no way to sense or
determine their [God's] presence," I appreciate your long reply below.
But as I said in another post, I think you overstated your claim, so why
not just humbly restate and modify it? Remember that if there is a God,
He can make Himself "untraceable" to scientific instruments. He doesn't
live in a parallel universe; instead, the Bible talks about a different
realm: the spiritual realm as opposed to the material one in which we
live. But God did enter the material realm two millennia ago in the
person of Jesus so that people could and did touch Him and hear Him
audibly and see His power. We have several eyewitness testimonies to this
effect in historically reliable documents.
        About what you said regarding "proofs," I think we're on the same page
about this. Consider the probability of Jesus' resurrection. Of course
there will still remain some doubts, so that a measure of faith is needed
-- that's just the way God designed it. There's never enough evidence for
a dishonest cynic, but just enough for an honest skeptic.
        On your comments about God being all-knowing and the size His brain
would have to be: You're trying to draw a picture of God within your
belief system, as though He has to be material. On the contrary, God is
spirit. Step outside of the box you've made for yourself in which you
process ideas and theories through a certain filter. At the very least,
examine the issue of God the way philosophers and theologians (not
necessarily Christian) do -- they certainly don't confine God to the
material realm. You do have respect for intelligent people and their
ideas in the fields of philosophy, theology, archaeology, history, and
others, don't you?
        Finally, I'm sorry to hear that you won't be corresponding with us for a
little while. I understand that you need to take some time off from all
of this. Before you go, I do hope you realize that not every Christian is
a fundamentalist and not every religion is a cult. More importantly, I
pray that you come to know God as your loving Father and Jesus as your
Savior, brother, and best friend.

Bob San Pascual
==========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
 

<<You have rushed in with your favorite god; you are
  totally ignoring what I said: That there's an infinite
  number of possibilities.>>

       There may be an infinite number of
       possibilities, but there is only one
       reality.  If there is no God, about 95% of
       the world's population throughout history has
       been defining it's existence on the
       non-reality of spiritual identity.  If there
       is a God, only one explanation is accurate,
       only one

       answer is correct.  There cannot be as many
       valid explanations of the true nature of God
       as there are people who care to propose a
       theory.  If you really want to know,
       sincerely, then there is only One who can
       answer you, only One you should reasonably
       ask.  The proof is in the answer, if you are
       willing to listen.
 

In
       Christ, Amy
 

"Proof" should not depend on my "willingness to listen", whatever
that means. A proofs must stand on its own, irrespective of what any
one individual wants to believe.

What you are really asking me is to return to that state of delusion it
took me 4 years to undo. "Willingness to listen" directly translates
into willingness to allow myself to be led by delusion. I have taken
great pains to ensure that I am never led by delusion ever again.

And like I said in so many words before, the "one you choose to
'listen' to" is determined by personal preference and acculturation. If
you were raised a Jew, Judaism would most likely be your choice. If
you were raised a Hindu, Hinduism would most likely be your choice.
To these people, their choices seem just as "obvious" and
"self-assured" as yours is. And only religious bigotry would suggest
otherwise.

I have worked with and spoken with Indians, Jews, etc. on this matter.
You cannot invalidate their faith anymore than they can invalidate
yours. They are just as convinced that their way is right as you are
about your way. They have there set of cannons just like you have
yours. It's all personal preference and acculturation. The more
Christians come to this realization, the better off our world will be. I
really don't see what is so difficult with this concept. My 7-year-old
daughter understands this!

Sigh....

-Fred
Back to my break....
======================================

 From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Brother Allen,
If you already received this email, please forgive me. I'm cleaning up my email
folders so I may do a complete c drive reboot. God bless you bro.
Regarding your comment:"Most of the people you are arguing with have neither
your intelligence or quickness of wit. (That's intended as an insult to none
by-the-way)"
"Put up your dukes, put up your dukes!"(Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz)
Seriously, I resemble that remark though I prefer to be called ignorant rather than
slow of wit or intelligence. But seeing you are a new kid on the block and your
brother-in-law(whom I like a bit)invited you to join this gabfest, I will spare your
toes when I meet you in person.
Really seriously, I have been enlightened by the things I do understand from your
replies to our friend Fred. May God continue to give you wisdom in these
matters.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve Saxton
==============================================