RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

>Hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a mere mortal man just all of

>us (men) here.

>

>

>

>-

>

>

" Actually, he was God taking on the form of man. He was not just a mere

mortal, but both God and man at the same time. Not that I'm trying to

convince you, I just wanted you to know the truth. :-) Only God can

convince you.

Steph "

This is exactly what refers to as " crap " . Again, will disabuse

me for the liberties I take with his views....Obviously, he understands

that, in Christian theory, Jesus was God and man. was not trying to

enlighten you about Christian theory. So, you are providing absolutely

no new information at all, which you obviously knew. What you are doing

is proselytizing your Christianity as fact, which is about as offensive

as it gets, except when 'you people' start imposing your politics on

others.

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> I was raised Christian... " God gave his only son for our sins. " That

> would imply to me that Christ was God's son, not God himself.

" Lana,

You may want to re-read the bible if you have any interest in this

topic, in particular the first chapter of , or read basically

anything about history of Christological issues in the Church. This has

been long-settled in the history of the church and I don't see a point

of reinventing the whole debate when the first chapter of so

*clearly* says that Christ is God. "

I'm at a disadvantage, not having looked at this in a very, very long

time...but isn't there some mystical stuff in about all of us

having God in us? Which might mitigate somewhat the notion that Jesus

WAS God in the sense that you're stating it?

" I think that's true, and it's also true that those who attempt to

reduce Christianity to a set of ethical teachings are totally, totally

missing the point, from a Christian perspective.

But what I find amusing is that two non-Christians and essentially

atheists (if I understand Taoism correctly, it is atheistic, or at least

non-theistic?) are arguing about what Christ was, as if there were

historical evidence or evidence of any kind on which to base the

arguments. "

LOL> What I find amusing is that you are so obviously misinterpreting

what said, which had nothing at all to do with Christian theology.

Or do you think that he was stating that Christian theology interprets

Jesus as a 'mere mortal'? I'd say that there is plenty of historical

evidence that Jesus was a mortal. I'd start with the fact that there is

absolutely no evidence ever produced that any of the many billions of

humans who have ever lived has ever been immortal. Kind of like saying

that the 'issue' of whether Jesus was an alien is a 'debate'. What

" evidence " is there that he isn't?

" The Christian bases the arguments largely on faith. The atheist is

fair to dismiss faith as non-evidence. But the atheist is not justified

in making positive, evidence-requiring statements about who Christ was

for which he or she does NOT have the appropriate evidence to meet her

or his own criteria. "

Well, this post is a perfect example of how 'logic' can be " crap " also,

as can science, religion, Christ, Buddah, and whatever else has been

corrupted.

" I think would have been much more justified in saying that there

is no evidence that Jesus was more than a mortal, therefore the

probability that he was more than a mere mortal man is negligible. "

LOL. What a crock...but it's nice that you're so 'open minded'.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I think would have been much more justified in saying that there

>is no evidence that Jesus was more than a mortal, therefore the

>probability that he was more than a mere mortal man is negligible.

" Fair enough; consider my statement thus reworded. " Negligible " ,

though, while technically correct, nonetheless doesn't quite convey

the astronomical odds against. "

Unfair. Do not succumb to the dark side. You were entirely correct,

given the context, in stating it like you did. The way that language

works, is that statements can be made as FACT if the odds against them

are 'astronomical' as you put it. Again, as I pointed out in a previous

post, one might say that the odds that Jesus was an alien, or that Elvis

was an alien, or that Masterjohn is an alien, are infinitesmally

small, rather than 0, but that would be an odd use of the language.

Well, actually, I think that the chances that is an alien is

somewhat higher. Which probably increases the odds that Jesus was also..

-

[Guest guest]

,

I see that you and Gene are determined to believe what you want and I

will make no difference in your life. I must simply say that I believe

in Jesus, God the Father, and Holy Spirit. I can ONLY do this through

faith it cannot be " proved " . One day, " Every knee will bow in heaven

and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue (your's included)

will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "

Phil. 2:11 Even though this makes no impact on you because you don't

believe that the Bible is true, it will be so. Thus I have stated my

position and will say no more on the topic.

Kayla

Idol wrote:

> Kayla-

>

> >I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so lightly.

>

> And Muslims doubtless think that you will someday wish you had not

> taken Mohammed so lightly.

>

> >What is mere

> >mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " .

>

> Hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a mere mortal man just all of

> us (men) here.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I read the KJ bible quite a few times well over 10 years back. I

guess I've forgotten pieces in my old age.

Immaculate Conception means " clean conception. " I was always taught

that meant didn't get pregnant by a man, but rather by God. I

didn't realize there was a Catholic doctrine called the same which

pertains to the conception of herself. I ran a search and it

looks like the term I was looking for was " Virgin Birth " ?

My point was that all humans come from sperm + egg (regardless of how

they meet) and therefore we are all merely human beings.

> That he was of mortal flesh, with which a Christian would agree, is a

> separate statement from 's, which was that he was a *mere* mortal

> man, with which a Christian would agree.

Did you mean to say " wouldn't " on that second one?

Mere used to mean " Pure; unadulterated " . It looks like now its now

used more as a belittling word... " Small; slight "

You can't be immortal and mortal simultaneously, so you are purely

mortal. (Assuming we're using the definition of " Liable or subject to

death. " )

> biggest problem with Christians nowadays is *some* of them get so

> > caught up in worshipping Christ that they tend to forget about his

> > teachings. Quite frankly, I would agree with (in this specific

> > case) that " Christ " as a name, invocation, idol or otherwise is

> > " crap. " It is sad that a lot of people only see the name and not the

> > teachings.

>

> I think that's true, and it's also true that those who attempt to

> reduce Christianity to a set of ethical teachings are totally, totally

> missing the point, from a Christian perspective.

I agree. I believe you can't truly be a Christian without having both

respect for the name and the teachings.

> But what I find amusing is that two non-Christians and essentially

> atheists (if I understand Taoism correctly, it is atheistic, or at

> least non-theistic?)

In taoism there's a belief in a greater force (the tao). So, I guess

it would technically be non-theistic. I've kinda evolved over the

years to respect tao a lot like gaia, and as I ferment more I think I

might actually start considering bacteria and yeast my " Gods " as I now

know there would be no life without them. Odd faith, I guess.

> But the atheist is

> not justified in making positive, evidence-requiring statements about

> who Christ was for which he or she does NOT have the appropriate

> evidence to meet her or his own criteria.

I've read this over and over and I don't think I am getting what you meant.

> I think would have been much more justified in saying that there

> is no evidence that Jesus was more than a mortal, therefore the

> probability that he was more than a mere mortal man is negligible.

I still maintain that Christ was purely able to die, therefore a mere

mortal. I guess I'm using a different " mere " ...

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana,

Yes, Christ was able to die, but he also came back to life after 3

days and I know of no mortal that can do that.

Kayla

>

> I still maintain that Christ was purely able to die, therefore a mere

> mortal. I guess I'm using a different " mere " ...

>

> -Lana

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> I read the KJ bible quite a few times well over 10 years back. I

> guess I've forgotten pieces in my old age.

Well not being a Christian I wouldn't expect you to be much aware of

it, especially as the porportion that deals with the divinity of

Christ is extremely small.

> Immaculate Conception means " clean conception. " I was always taught

> that meant didn't get pregnant by a man, but rather by God.

No, this is Christian doctrine too, but not the one to which is

referred by the term " Immaculate Conception. "

> I didn't realize there was a Catholic doctrine called the same which

> pertains to the conception of herself. I ran a search and it

> looks like the term I was looking for was " Virgin Birth " ?

Yes, I guess so. The IC isn't interpreted as a virgin birth, but it

means that there was no sin in the conception I guess.

> My point was that all humans come from sperm + egg (regardless of how

> they meet) and therefore we are all merely human beings.

Right, but your point is not a refutation of the virgin birth by any

means. You're establishing a law based on the countless observations

of human conceptions we've observed do not conflict with that law,

whereas the Christian who believes in the Virgin birth does not hold a

theory of conception that is in any way contradicted by these

countless observations.

> > That he was of mortal flesh, with which a Christian would agree, is a

> > separate statement from 's, which was that he was a *mere* mortal

> > man, with which a Christian would agree.

>

> Did you mean to say " wouldn't " on that second one?

Yes I did. Sorry about that. :-)

> Mere used to mean " Pure; unadulterated " . It looks like now its now

> used more as a belittling word... " Small; slight "

No, I didn't mean that it meant anything belittling at all. The

Christian believes that Christ is the enhypostatic union of a divine

nature and a human nature. Therefore the Christian would disagree

with both your and 's assessment of him as mere mortal.

> You can't be immortal and mortal simultaneously, so you are purely

> mortal. (Assuming we're using the definition of " Liable or subject to

> death. " )

And this is directly contradictory to the Christian view.

> I agree. I believe you can't truly be a Christian without having both

> respect for the name and the teachings.

I meant, however, an additional point, which is that the teachings

themselves are not merely ethical.

[snip]

> > But the atheist is

> > not justified in making positive, evidence-requiring statements about

> > who Christ was for which he or she does NOT have the appropriate

> > evidence to meet her or his own criteria.

>

> I've read this over and over and I don't think I am getting what you meant.

Someone who requires evidence rather than faith for a belief can not

form an absolute belief about someone or something which she or he did

not witness or does not have evidence for. Thus, the atheist can

easily reject the Christian's faith-based claim of Jesus Christ's

divinity, but can not make the positive, absolute statment that such

divinity is false because she or he is not in possession of such

evidence.

The Christian's faith-based claim may be worthless to the athiest, but

it does not conflict with the Christian's view of how knowledge is

obtained. For the atheist, who rejects faith and requires evidence,

agnosticism is required for the identity of Christ in the absence of

evidence, although the atheist could, as has, point out that the

odds are astronomically low that Christ is more than mere mortal.

> > I think would have been much more justified in saying that there

> > is no evidence that Jesus was more than a mortal, therefore the

> > probability that he was more than a mere mortal man is negligible.

>

> I still maintain that Christ was purely able to die, therefore a mere

> mortal. I guess I'm using a different " mere " ...

We are using the same sense of " mere. " Your viewpoint is not

acceptable as a Christian viewpoint. That is unsurprising, as you are

admittedly not a Christian. I'm simply trying to make it clear that

from a Christian perspective your belief about Christ is false.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

" Someone who requires evidence rather than faith for a belief can not

form an absolute belief about someone or something which she or he did

not witness or does not have evidence for. Thus, the atheist can easily

reject the Christian's faith-based claim of Jesus Christ's divinity, but

can not make the positive, absolute statment that such divinity is false

because she or he is not in possession of such evidence. "

Hmmmm....let's test this. The statement that Jesus was/is God, in the

sense in which it is usually meant by Christians, is false.

There. I did it.

" The Christian's faith-based claim may be worthless to the athiest, but

it does not conflict with the Christian's view of how knowledge is

obtained. "

?

" For the atheist, who rejects faith and requires evidence, agnosticism

is required for the identity of Christ in the absence of evidence,

although the atheist could, as has, point out that the odds are

astronomically low that Christ is more than mere mortal. "

What in the world are you babbling about? An atheist, if he became an

agnostic could then believe that Jesus was God? In what sense then would

he be an agnostic? Or are you arguing that there would have to be that

intermediate stage between the atheism and the belief?

[Guest guest]

> Right, but your point is not a refutation of the virgin birth by any

> means. You're establishing a law based on the countless observations

> of human conceptions we've observed do not conflict with that law,

> whereas the Christian who believes in the Virgin birth does not hold a

> theory of conception that is in any way contradicted by these

> countless observations.

Are you saying that Christians do believe that conception occured

normally in the virgin birth? Or are you saying that Christians

believe there is some alternate way to procreate that is acceptable

under their own law? Or am I missing the point, yet again?

(Believe it or not, I actually like being set straight about this

stuff, it helps my perspective.)

> > You can't be immortal and mortal simultaneously, so you are purely

> > mortal. (Assuming we're using the definition of " Liable or subject to

> > death. " )

>

> And this is directly contradictory to the Christian view.

Yeah, I think this was part of the reason I stopped being Christian.

> > I agree. I believe you can't truly be a Christian without having both

> > respect for the name and the teachings.

>

> I meant, however, an additional point, which is that the teachings

> themselves are not merely ethical.

*nods* Point taken.

> Someone who requires evidence rather than faith for a belief can not

> form an absolute belief about someone or something which she or he did

> not witness or does not have evidence for. Thus, the atheist can

> easily reject the Christian's faith-based claim of Jesus Christ's

> divinity, but can not make the positive, absolute statment that such

> divinity is false because she or he is not in possession of such

> evidence.

I see now... because it is against his own evidence-based belief to

do so. Gotcha.

> I'm simply trying to make it clear that

> from a Christian perspective your belief about Christ is false.

I see your point. I still believe it is better to respect other's

gods/idols/etc than to dismiss them as nonexistant, even though you

may not have any evidence either way. What does that make me?

-Lana

[Guest guest]

" ,

I see that you and Gene are determined to believe what you want and I

will make no difference in your life. I must simply say that I believe

in Jesus, God the Father, and Holy Spirit. I can ONLY do this through

faith it cannot be " proved " . "

Well, obviously it cannot be proven. If it could, who in their right

mind would not 'believe'?

" One day, " Every knee will bow in heaven

and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue (your's included)

will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "

Phil. 2:11 Even though this makes no impact on you because you don't

believe that the Bible is true, it will be so. Thus I have stated my

position and will say no more on the topic. "

Good, because I am tingling with the impulse to violate the lists

regulations about insulting people. There is nothing more offensive to

me than superficial interpretations of religion that are used as

spiritual threats against people.

Hail Satan!

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'm at a disadvantage, not having looked at this in a very, very long

> time...but isn't there some mystical stuff in about all of us

> having God in us? Which might mitigate somewhat the notion that Jesus

> WAS God in the sense that you're stating it?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the first chapter of

does not state that God was in Jesus. It states:

" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the

Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made

through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. . .

.. And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and

truth. "

I'm using " Logos " untranslated because is drawing from a Greek

philosophical concept that is not adequately translated as " Word. "

Anyway, from this we can draw the following statements:

1) Jesus, being the Logos of God, is (was) God.

2) The Logos is eternal, being " in the beginning " with God

3) The Logos us uncreated, because " all thigns were made through him. "

This is quite clearly not the sense in which all humans have God

within us. Only to God are attributed the properties of eternal being

and uncreatedness.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'm at a disadvantage, not having looked at this in a very, very long

> time...but isn't there some mystical stuff in about all of us

> having God in us? Which might mitigate somewhat the notion that Jesus

> WAS God in the sense that you're stating it?

" I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the first chapter of

does not state that God was in Jesus. It states:

" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the

Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made

through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. . . .

And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. "

I'm using " Logos " untranslated because is drawing from a Greek

philosophical concept that is not adequately translated as " Word. "

Anyway, from this we can draw the following statements:

1) Jesus, being the Logos of God, is (was) God.

2) The Logos is eternal, being " in the beginning " with God

3) The Logos us uncreated, because " all thigns were made through him. "

This is quite clearly not the sense in which all humans have God within

us. Only to God are attributed the properties of eternal being and

uncreatedness. "

I'd say that this clearly IS the sense in which the Christian (and

other) mystic tradition would say that God is within us. I probably

don't have the time to reread this, but my strong suspicion is that you

are missing quite a bit here.

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> " For the atheist, who rejects faith and requires evidence, agnosticism

> is required for the identity of Christ in the absence of evidence,

> although the atheist could, as has, point out that the odds are

> astronomically low that Christ is more than mere mortal. "

>

> What in the world are you babbling about? An atheist, if he became an

> agnostic could then believe that Jesus was God? In what sense then would

> he be an agnostic? Or are you arguing that there would have to be that

> intermediate stage between the atheism and the belief?

I'm sorry, I should have said " agnosticism is required with respect to... "

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>>Hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a mere mortal man just all of

us (men) here.

I'm not quibbling with this statement, but Mr. Science Guy, stick with what's

knowable if you wanna keep the title. You can't disprove what the faithful

believe. You can't know whether the experiences that people characterize as

supernatural do or do not occur. You may earnestly believe it's all woo-woo,

but you can't *know* that. So why state opinion as fact? Isn't that what bugs

you about religious believers?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Unfair. Do not succumb to the dark side. You were entirely correct,

>given the context, in stating it like you did.

In casual conversation, absolutely. However, if we're going to

adhere to strict scientific standards, Chris's formulation is

technically correct -- as it would be for virtually any statement

about the natural world.

> The way that language

>works, is that statements can be made as FACT if the odds against them

>are 'astronomical' as you put it.

Yes, in a conversational sense, I absolutely agree with you.

> Again, as I pointed out in a previous

>post, one might say that the odds that Jesus was an alien, or that Elvis

>was an alien, or that Masterjohn is an alien, are infinitesmally

>small, rather than 0, but that would be an odd use of the language.

>Well, actually, I think that the chances that is an alien is

>somewhat higher. Which probably increases the odds that Jesus was also..

LOL! It depends on the context. If we're discussing scientific

theories, there are no facts other than observations. But obviously

in ordinary conversation, the idea that Jesus was the astral

projection of an extinct elephant from the year 3165 can be treated

as simply false.

-

[Guest guest]

>I understand, likewise, that this is absurd to someone who is not a

>Christian because she or he sees no reason to make such an exception. "

>

>Wouldn't everything you say here apply to all irrational beliefs? What

>makes this different exactly. Obviously, if I believe that I am from

>Venus, and have come about that belief, say, through a dream in which

>my mother was whisked away to Venus and copulated with the high

>Venusian priest, nothing that you say can count as a refutation to ME.

>So what?

>

" Yes, I agree Gene. If it is an absurd idea, then it is so. Why make

an

exception to rational thinking? If you make one exception, then why not

another? "

Because we're talking about the notion of refutation, and we're having a

rational discussion? Seems pretty clear. It's kind of ludicrous to say,

well, rationality is irrational also.

" It all leads to irrational thinking one way or another and

changes the otherwise normal functioning of the brain. "

Thinking changes the 'otherwise normal functioning of the brain'. That

makes no sense to me. What is 'normal', then? Why wouldn't we expect

brain activity to, well, affect the brain? And, what exactly do you mean

by saying that rational thinking " leads to " irrational thinking? I don't

see these as well defined statements at all.

" and I

debated the logic of the Trinity and it could not be shown (and he did

say something to the effect that even though it couldn't be shown

logically that it did not mean it was illogical, cmiiw Chris).

Helga linked to this Church of Reality recently, and I like the site

myself. Here's some stuff on faith:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_faith_paradox/

-------------------

Faith means to believe in something without evidence or proof. "

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I know what faith is. Please...

" Using the

term in the Christian sense, faith is required. You have to make a

commitment to accept statements as true without evidence or proof. "

Well, in this case, you are making a commitment to accept statements as

true where there is, at least to my way of thinking, counterevidence.

" In

fact that is God's test to see if you can believe in him without any

reason other than trust in the authority of the church and it's holy

books. And you are prohibited from doubting, questioning, scrutinizing,

or putting the object of faith to the test. "

You state this as fact? Very curious indeed that you can state something

that requires faith, as fact like this. I would imagine that someone who

really had faith would not - or would at least recognize that in normal

discourse, controversial items of faith (i.e. where there is the high

expectation that the other parties either have contradictory items of

faith, or simply don't believe) would be stated with, uh, more humility.

" Once something that relies

on faith is proven, then it becomes science. "

Please quote me where I am talking about " proof " .

" If everything were proven

then there would be nothing left that is real to have faith in. "

That is simply absurd, really. How could EVERYTHING be proven?

" The requirement of faith puts an interesting twist in the rules. If

faith were optional then it wouldn't matter how you believed in

something. But when the test of salvation is based not on what you

believe in, but how you believe in it, i.e. faith, then if you don't

believe in it by that method, you burn in Hell forever. "

And this is the superficial, crap, Christianity that I think deserves

being ridiculed. The notion, that it is not your actions, but your

acquiesence to a proposition that determines your status for eternity is

quite hilarious, really. I have no desire that such a god should exist.

" Based on this,

science can not lead you to God because if you get to God through

science then you don't have faith and you got there the wrong way. "

Why on earth are you arguing against points that I never made?

" There

isn't anything in the Bible that indicates that you are saved through

scientific discovery. It's about faith, and only faith.

But Faith in What?

The test of salvation is faith. You are required to believe through

faith and not through science. But what are you required to have faith

in? There are tens of thousands of choices out there to put your faith

in, but what if you pick the wrong one? Will you go to Hell if you pick

the wrong one? Most definitely you will. "

LOL. So that's what it's come to, eh. You Christian fanatics on this

list telling the non-Christians that they will " most definitely " burn in

hell. LOL. I despise this kind of narrow minded, illogical, bigotry.

" One Sunday afternoon as you are sitting on your porch, a Jehovah's

Witness and a member of the Assembly of God walk up to you at the same

time to convert you to their religion. Both of them claim to be Bible

believing Christians who are out to save your soul so that you might

enter the Kingdom of Heaven to live forever in eternal paradise. However

it is soon apparent that these religions are mutually exclusive, each

claiming the other is the road to hell. Perhaps there are 10 different

religions represented as other Christians start gathering. Seventh Day

Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, Baptists, Moonies, and throw in a

Muslim, all of them claiming that all the others are false beliefs and

that unless you make the correct choice, your soul is forever lost. But

the one thing they have in common is that you must believe through

faith.

So - how do you choose? How do you decide which one is right?

Obviously you can't start out by using reason because if you use science

and logic then you will surely pick the wrong one. If the belief is

scientifically provable then you won't be able to believe in it through

faith. Since faith is required then scientific proof would be

prohibited. Suppose there were one true religion, the religion who got

it all right (or at least really close). And suppose that it had the

salvation by faith clause. Then suppose that science proved that this

religion were real. What would that mean? "

Please - your post has NOTHING to do with anything I've said, and I find

it utterly offensive.

Btw, I am not an atheist.

Hail Satan.

[Guest guest]

Mati-

>I'm not quibbling with this statement, but Mr. Science Guy, stick

>with what's knowable if you wanna keep the title. You can't

>disprove what the faithful believe. You can't know whether the

>experiences that people characterize as supernatural do or do not

>occur. You may earnestly believe it's all woo-woo, but you can't

>*know* that. So why state opinion as fact? Isn't that what bugs

>you about religious believers?

The burden is always on the one making a statement to prove that it's

true. That's how science works. To date, all religious and other

claims of the supernatural which have been tested have

failed. Therefore, I don't consider religious supernatural

assertions to possess any more validity than this statement does:

there's an invisible and completely undetectable dragon sitting on my lap.

-

[Guest guest]

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Has anyone read anything about the possibility that

> genetics may

> predispose us to being believers or non-believers? "

>

> And what exactly constitutes the test for a

> believer? Simply answering

> 'yes' to the question of whether they believe in

> God? How else could you

> test for anything else

" Washington Times article

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

God gene search. Gives gene name and question amount.

Book by geneticist.

Wanita "

God Wanita basic quality filter. The issue just doesn't interest me.

It's junk. The Washington Times is a well known Moonie right wing piece

of trash, which adds to the credibility.

[Guest guest]

>Sounds like utter bull to me.

" It could be, but since you don't know anything about it other than the

vaguest of details that I've related here, it would seem awfully

illogical of you to dismiss it out of hand just based on your own

presuppositions. "

Really? You don't dismiss anything as out of hand?

[Guest guest]

Oh, for heaven's sake (so to speak), learn to use your mail software to

sort, delete, etc. Take responsibilty for your own lack of technical

expertise in better controlling your mail. Learn to use filters and

threads. I highly recommend Google mail.

I'm enjoying this thread tremendously. Enjoying doesn't mean I'm agreeing

with everyone or everything. On any number of level, this is quite

satisfying. If nothing else, let's enjoy the evidence that good nutrition

promotes quality repartee, as opposed to the oft dull-witted, thin-skinned

brain sludge all too common in other groups.

Reparteey on...........

Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

On 1/8/06, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> Please, please, please stop talking about religion. This is a food

> group and my email is getting filled up with more than it can handle.

>

> Group leader - aren't you supposed to monitor this sort of thing?

[Guest guest]

RE: RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

Gene-

>Unfair. Do not succumb to the dark side. You were entirely correct,

>given the context, in stating it like you did.

" In casual conversation, absolutely. However, if we're going to

adhere to strict scientific standards, Chris's formulation is

technically correct -- as it would be for virtually any statement

about the natural world. "

Well, but that is not the conversation that was being had, I would

claim. Just as the believer is not formulating his/her beliefs as a

logical conclusion, or based on careful consideration of evidence,

refutation of such a belief does not require 'scientific proof'. To

insist on it is really changing the meaning of refutation, in the way it

would normally be used for such matters.

> The way that language

>works, is that statements can be made as FACT if the odds against them

>are 'astronomical' as you put it.

" Yes, in a conversational sense, I absolutely agree with you. "

And that's really the issue - there can be no scientific disproof of

something that cannot admit to a scientific test. You can't show, with

this supposed 100% certainty that the devil as a huge, red, horned

creature doesn't actually thrive in hell. But you have no doubt that

this belief is false. It seems utterly ludicrous to me to insist on any

kind of scientific evidence, or admit to the 'small possibility' that

this devil might exist. It is ONLY a matter of conversation - it isn't a

matter of science.

> Again, as I pointed out in a previous

>post, one might say that the odds that Jesus was an alien, or that

>Elvis was an alien, or that Masterjohn is an alien, are

>infinitesmally small, rather than 0, but that would be an odd use of

>the language. Well, actually, I think that the chances that is an

>alien is somewhat higher. Which probably increases the odds that Jesus

>was also..

" LOL! It depends on the context. If we're discussing scientific

theories, there are no facts other than observations. But obviously

in ordinary conversation, the idea that Jesus was the astral

projection of an extinct elephant from the year 3165 can be treated

as simply false. "

Well, as I said above, to treat an issue where there could not be any

conceivable scientific test as a matter of science is a mistake.

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>For atheism to be based in

>reason, it would logically be arrived at ONLY after one has examined the

>historical evidence that suggests the existance of a god. If the evidence is

>carefully analyzed and found to be unconvincing, then I think atheism is a

>reasonable, logical choice.

For starters, you're placing way too much faith in " historical

evidence " and the historical " record " . Are you familiar with the

expression that history is written by the victors?

>But it is

>interesting that this book was written by someone who set out to DISprove

>Christianty but upon serious investigation in his rush to disprove it, he

>became convinced that the historical evidence was contrary to his

>hypothesis.

That sounds highly suspicious, but even if it's true, so what?

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>So there is a genetic mutation which correlates to

>answering 'yes' when asked this specific question?

>

>Sounds like utter bull to me.

That's because you're not approaching the question in a reasonable

fashion. Whether or not it's true that faith is at least partly

genetic in origin, we have genes which give rise to all sorts of

abilities and personality traits. Why is " faith " (or some root trait

which gives rise to it) necessarily any different?

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Please, please, please stop talking about religion. This is a food

>group and my email is getting filled up with more than it can handle.

>

>Group leader - aren't you supposed to monitor this sort of thing?

If you create a filter in your email client which will transfer NN

messages with the word 'RELIGION' in the subject line to the trash,

you'll never even notice them.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Kayla-

>

> >I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so lightly.

>

> And Muslims doubtless think that you will someday wish you had not

> taken Mohammed so lightly.

>

> >What is mere

> >mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " .

>

> Hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a mere mortal man just all of

> us (men) here.

Oh this is just tooooooo funny. I enjoyed a nice Christmas day

yesterday only to come back and find a thread on God and Christianity.

And I can barely hold my fingers reading just a couple of the posts,

assertions, and counter assertions. Oh this should be fun, LOL!

But first off to that sea of irrationality known as Orthodox worship.

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Father Mark Gilstrap