>SB>An entity that would condemn someone to eternal torture
>
>The Bible in the original doesn't use the word "torture" of unbelievers. The
>word for "torture" [Gk. tumpanizo - to stretch on an instrument of torture
>resembling a drum, and thus beat to death:--torture] only appears in the
>Bible in Heb 11:35 where it is *believers* who have been tortured by
>unbelievers!
you are really stretching for this one :-)
>The NIV translation of the Bible does translate another word as "torture"
>but only once of unbelievers and that is in a parable (Mt 8:29), and is
>IMHO a mistranslation. That word is Gk. basanizo which can mean
>"torture" but primarily means "torment".
the NIV is, according to a Christian friend of mine, one of the most
dishonest translations of the bible. Many of its passages have been
completely rewritten and do not reflect the original. I have no personal
knowledge of this, but that's what he said.
my answer is "so what?" burning forever in hellfire is torture.
>If any unbeliever wants to know how they can become a Christian, please
>email me privately.
I'm sure you have been deluged with replies.
> >SJ>The problem is not "evidence" but *attitude* to the "evidence". As Pascal
> >>pointed out there is enough evidence for those who are willing to
> accept it,
> >>but not enough evidence to force those who are unwilling to accept it:
>
>SB>Isn't he the guy who recommended lying about belief in God just to appease
> >God just in case he existed so you wouldn't go to hell?
>
>I am not aware of it, but if he did, he would be wrong on that point.
>
>Perhaps Susan can post where exactly it is that Pascal "recommended lying
>about belief in God just to appease God"?
this is from a philosophy of religion site:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
"Wagering for God superdominates wagering against God: the worst outcome
associated with wagering for God (status quo) is at least as good as the
best outcome associated with wagering against God (status quo); and if God
exists, the result of wagering for God is strictly better that the result
of wagering against God. (The fact that the result is much better does not
matter yet.) Pascal draws the conclusion at this point that rationality
requires you to wager for God. "
> >SJ>"There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
> >>humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate
> >>and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
> >>(Pascal B., "Pensees," 1966, p.73)
>
>SB>exactly the same thing could be said about Hinduism or any of the other
> >hundreds of human religions. All of them have "evidence" that the Sky
> >Lizard really, truly (no *really*) exists.
>
>Well Susan clearly agrees with me that in the case of "Hinduism or any of
>the other hundreds of human religions" that they are based on *false*
>"evidence" otherwise she would believe one of them! So the only thing we
>need to concern ourselves with is what we both disagree on, namely the
>"evidence" for *Christianity*.
I don't think Christianity is any different from any of the many hundreds
(perhaps thousands) of religions that humans have involved themselves in. I
think my point above was that the evidence for the reality of the Hindu
gods isn't any more compelling that the evidence for the reality of the
Christian gods.
> >>>ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
> >>(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin..." 1982, p.10)
>
>SB>Interesting. I did searches with several search engines and found
>literally
> >*dozens* of pages of creationist sites stuffed with the usual out of
> >context quotes including this one, but no hint of who this guy is. . . .
>
>I am pleased that Susan finally admits that these are my own quotes from
>books I have read, and not from one of those mythical quotes sites she is
>always talking about but never providing their URLs!
http://www.creationists.org/quote005.html
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/philoevolquotes.htm
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter9/index3.htm
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/biggestLIE.html
http://www.biblegems.org/additional_resources.html
http://users.erols.com/csoon/evonev.html
http://members.aol.com/txchurch/sound/t0202.htm
>And, as I have stated before, I do not claim to have read from cover to
>cover every book I quote from. But in the case of Leith's book I have read
>it from beginning to end.
and out of the entire book you started your quote at exactly the same point
that all the other creationists did. An *amazing* coincidence!
>SB>I'd like for Stephen
> >to provide us with a few paragraphs above the one presented and a few
> >paragraphs below and the title of the Chapter.
>
>Why? Does Susan after all doubt that I own the book? Or does she have a quote
>that is does start before my quote? Whatever, Susan's wish is my command!
>Here
>is the entire Chapter up to the words quoted:
thank you! No, I didn't believe that you had a copy of it.
> ultimately be the benefactor. Like it or not, many of the central
> issues of Darwinism are also the central issues of our culture and
> politics: over-population, the struggle for existence, the sensible use
> of resources, and so on. A theory about man's origins is bound to entail
> more than
> straightforward science.
>
> (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
> Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.9-10)
BTW, in "Finding Darwin's God" Miller does a job on the people who think
evolution explains *everything*. I think it explains the wide ranging
flexibility of human behavior but not the details of that behavior.
> >SJ>The democracy that Susan enjoys in America owes itself to the
> >>congregational democracy of its founding *Christian* Pilgrim Fathers.
> >
> >about 60% of them were Deists, not Christians (have you ever heard of the
> >Jefferson Bible?).
>
>Susan needs to learn her US history! :-) She seems to be getting mixed up
>with the "Pilgrim Fathers" and the "Founding Fathers". The "Pilgrim
>Fathers" were in the early 17th century:
Ah! my mistake!
When I begin a history of Unitarianism I always ask my audience "ever
wonder what happened to the Pilgrims?" I answer the question by telling
them that they evolved into the Congregationalists who then evolved into
several denominations including the Unitarians.
The Pilgrims came here to escape religious oppression. Then, in fine
Christian style, they turned around and oppressed anyone who disagreed with
them. The Founding "Fathers" tried to make sure that it couldn't happen again.
>Jefferson, Thomas
>
>[...]
>
>b. April 2 [April 13, New Style], 1743, Shadwell, Va., U.S.
>d. July 4, 1826, Monticello, Va.
>draftsman of the Declaration of Independence, first secretary of state
>(1789-94), second vice president (1797-1801), and, as the third president
>of the United States (1801-09), responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. .
>. .
>lyrical expression of liberal ideals and the more attenuated reality of his
>own life has transformed Jefferson into America's most problematic and
>paradoxical hero.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am extremely familiar with Jefferson. He once said in a letter to a
friend that he would be a Unitarian if there were any Unitarian churches in
his neighborhood. Also he said he believed that all young men of his day
would grow up to become Unitarians. He obviously was not a candidate for
the Psychic Hotline and was not actually a Unitarian, but we claim him
anyway. *And* we are well aware of his human failings. I, myself, try not
to judge historical people by modern standards.
>SC>And they had seen the horror of what could happen when
> >Christians had control of the government.
>
>Anytime Christianity is mixed with politics the result will be bad. But as I
>have pointed out in our own century, atheist governments (e.g. Nazi
>Germany, Communist Russia, China, Cambodia, etc) has been *far* worse.
>About *100 million* people have been executed by atheist governments in
>our own century alone.
Hitler considered himself a Christian. But ignore that. He looks good on
the list.
>SC>They wrote the 1st Amendment very deliberately.
>
>I agree with "the 1st Amendment" that: "Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
>thereof...."
>(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,127112+1+116843,00.html)
>
>But I do not agree with the modern interpretations of it which try to ban
>any *expression* of religion in public life, and therefore, in effect leaves
>naturalism:
the "public life" thing is propaganda and is a lie. No body has ever tried
to ban religion in public life. What is banned is religion in government
institutions where citizens are *compelled* to participate in Christian
religious life. That includes prayer in school, prayer before
school-sponsored events, and of course, creationism in science classes.
If Christianity is so powerful and true it doesn't *need* the force of
government behind it.
>SB>It's [teaching religion in science class] the consuming passion of most
>creationists.
>
>It is the "consuming passion of most creationists" to have the original
>intention of the Constitution that the State should be "genuinely neutral
>between scientific naturalism and theism" and that "both positions should
>be admitted to public discussion, in the schools and elsewhere, and
>protected from `viewpoint discrimination.'"
>
>What Susan (and her ilk) want is for *their* secular religion (i.e.
>naturalism) to have an absolute monopoly in the public square.
nope! we just want science taught in science class--not religion.
>SB>What do you think all those Supreme Court decisions were about?
>
>They were about a number of things. If they were about "Congress shall
>make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof...." then few would disagree with them. But in none of
>those cases AFAIK had *Congress* made any law. They were IMHO
>illegitimate extensions of the First Amendment into matters of State law,
>and in fact where there was not even a law at all.
the states cannot pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution. Nor
can they engage in behavior that violates the constitution.
>SB>Most of the "problems" that Johnson cites are phony.
>
>Then they should be able to be answered *properly*. But what happens is
>that evolutionists usually resort to "propaganda and legal barriers to
>prevent relevant questions from being asked", "rely on enforcing rules of
>reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story" and "rely on
>the dishonorable methods of power
>politics." (see tagline).
bullshit. High schools science classes are NOT debate societies. If there
are "problems" they can and are debated in the open by *adults* without the
force of government behind them. What ever mainstream scientists say is
scientific fact needs to be taught in school classrooms. The fringies can
debate the mainstream somewhere else. And there is more and more of a
movement among scientists to take on the creationist and debate them in
public forums--a movement which I applaud. Because it would get the *real*
evolution out there and not the false creationist version which is almost
all that the poorly educated public knows about.
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 19 2000 - 10:52:44 EST