Today's Topic Summary
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/topics
JFG <thelemiccatholic@gmail.com> Dec 10 02:48PM -0800
> something to do with your god (which appears to be the Christian god),
>
I do believe in the Christian God.
> me that there are instances where God changes his mind.
>
That is only in relation to temporal occurrences, and only an
appearance, for the sake of our understanding.
> That would indicate two temporal states, would it not?
Two temporal states both existing in relation to a changeless God.
Those two relations are going to be different because those two states
are different.
> must surely be sequential and indicate change, do they not?
>
Not in God.
> Commandments without being functionally sequential as dictation would
> require.
God can interact with temporal phenomena, without Himself undergoing
change.
> disparate things in a particular order.
>
Why is that an issue?
> them?
>
Augustine wrote that he would believe in order to understand. Are you
willing to do that?
> things as true without explanatory requirements.
>
An example of one of God's actions in the past, that appears to be a
change of mind but truly is not: The Jonah incident.
First, let us view things from the perspective of the Changeless.
God's Will is always for the human beings on this planet to live
according to His moral Law. That does not change.
Now in Nineveh, in those days, they were not living according to God's
moral Law. This indicates a disparity between present reality at the
time, and God's Will. So naturally, God would want to fix that, i.e.
to change it. The unchanging God would initiate a change in the
changing world, according to His Will.
Now given that there was no change in their behavior, the Ninevites
were looking at impending destruction. God sent the prophet Jonah to
them to warn them. At Jonah's preaching, the Ninevites repented in
sackcloth and ashes, and stopped offending God. God, for His part,
relented from the punishment with which He had threatened them.
So it seems that God changed His mind. But did He really? I submit
that He did not. I submit that God's mind was always to convert the
Ninevites from their sins, and He accomplished that according to His
Will. He did so through His prophet. Jonah said, "Forty days more
and Nineveh will be destroyed," but the Ninevites heeded his warning
and repented, so Nineveh was not destroyed.
So in reality, God's Will, which He knew He would carry out, was to
send Jonah to convert them. But His method of converting them was
through the threat of punishment that He conveyed by Jonah, which
punishment He did not carry out. So was it an idle threat? Not at
all. Had the Ninevites failed to repent, God would have destroyed
them.
God did not change His mind. His intention was always for the
Ninevites to repent, and He caused them to do so. But it would seem
that at some point, He planned to destroy them, and at another point,
He planned to spare them, so that looks like a change of mind. But we
only see it that way from the perspective of the Ninevites. Jonah
knew, and God knew, that God was not going to carry out His threat,
because the Ninevites were going to repent. From the perspective of
the Ninevites, they were headed for destruction, and Jonah's preaching
was their salvation, so that they avoided impending doom and changed
the outcome from what it otherwise would have been. But from Jonah's
and God's perspective, God sent Jonah to warn them of what would
happen if they failed to alter their present course, just in order to
make them change that course. God knew from eternity how it would
play out, so there was no change of mind in God. God did not plan to
destroy them and then change His mind because they surprised Him with
their penitence. God planned to warn them of what would happen,
hypothetically, if reality were different from what it is and they
were about to fail to repent, and it was that very action of God's, in
warning them, that effected their actual repentance. And He carried
out His plan, through Jonah, exactly as He foreknew from eternity.
Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> Dec 10 04:33PM -0500
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
> If you didn't have something to hide, there would be no need to resort
> to such clever hiding.
I'm sorry to say that instead of mind reading or osmosis, I do need to
resort to placing my position in the text of my posts, where just
*anyone* can read it! So, if you ever want my position, there is no
need to posit a straw-man or otherwise manufacture one, you can simply
refer to the text of my posts.
Powerful stuff, this kind of forum. :)
> text of your response since your response doesn't even allude to the
> Biblical passages in question.
Or alternatively, I simply note that your characterization of the
issue is artificial and forced, and that I don't share it.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> Dec 10 04:36PM -0500
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
> what you claim to be hiding. What you're actually hiding is the fact
> that you don't have a response that you want anyone to read.
Nope, rather, I'm hiding my position right in the text of my
responses. It's so cleverly hidden that no one named ranjit would
ever think of looking for it there. :)
Regards,
Brock
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> Dec 10 01:45PM -0800
> responses. It's so cleverly hidden that no one named ranjit would
> ever think of looking for it there. :)
It's so cleverly hidden that no one with any name can find it in your
response.
Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> Dec 10 04:56PM -0500
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM, ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
> It's so cleverly hidden that no one with any name can find it in your
> response.
Not really, in general, any of the text in my post that is not quoted
from previous discussion represents my response to the previous
discussion, and contains my position. Even a sophist can find it
under such conditions.
Regards,
Brock
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> Dec 10 02:39PM -0800
> discussion, and contains my position. Even a sophist can find it
> under such conditions.
Sure. How about if it doesn't contain an answer to the question asked?
Can anyone (whether a sophist or otherwise) find it then? Suppose I
were to ask a bunch of readers "Does Brock believe that God commanded
that when a donkey's first baby is born it must have its neck broken
or a lamb must be killed?" Would they be able to answer with a "yes"
or "no" by reading your responses to my question?
Observer <mayorskid@gmail.com> Dec 10 02:27PM -0800
On Dec 9, 5:44 am, "TRUECRISTIANBorn Again Fundamentalist
> I. Just thinking about the pain and evil people like you have brought
> to the world, it brings tears to my eyes.
Observer
I would suggest a complete psychological work up by trained unbiased
professionals. It appears to me that the pot is beginning to crack.
Now if you would provide proof of the pain and evil that people like
(who?) have brought into the world. Your writing is so poor that it is
almost unintelligible.
When a mind begins to deteriorate to the point that tears and pain are
produced by the disbelief of others in crackpot superstitious nonsense
a serious problem is emerging . Get help.
I'll be praying that once
> you are a grown-up,
I find your attempted act of witchcraft and ritualized fetishistic
magic, appalling .
We are living in a time wherein the actualities of the universe are
known to us and are more and more controlled by applying scientific
method. You shame all of humanity by clinging to the ancient
demonology , magic and superstitious filth .
Get help , get an education. The ignorant do not understand science as
they have not read it those of you who refuse to do so are incredibly
stupid ,misanthropic, and live the lives of parasites wherein the hard
work of others , their support for scientific method, and well rounded
educations are are repaid by your indolence, intellectual sloth, and
horrible ignorance.
You have a responsibility as to your fellows which you fail to
shoulder. Why ?
Learn to learn !
you'll leave these childish delusions of yours
> behind, and come to accept the awesome love of our vengeful God.
Observer
You are an embarrassment to all of human kind.
Get Help !
Psychonomist
"TRUECRISTIANBorn Again Fundamentalist Christianity ]" <XL5@OPERAMAIL.COM> Dec 10 02:28PM -0800
> > > > On Dec 9, 12:28 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Neil Kelsey <> > neil_kel...@hotmail.com
Mr. Gracias,
why are you so full of hate? I don't understand your horrible
intolerance towards Christianity. What have we ever done to you? We
try to spread love to the world, and you come on here and mock us.
Your just proof of how empty and bitter the heart of an atheist really
is
Luckily, Jesus said I'm blessed by your persecution. But don't worry,
I'll pray for you, because I am SOOO much a better person than you
God bless.
xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com> Dec 10 01:38PM -0800
>
> Not true: A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
roses smelling sweet is contingent. it's possible for a rose not to
smell sweet. otoh, the statement: a sweet smelling rose smells sweet
is a necessary truth. it would be logically contradictory to say a
sweet smelling rose does not smell sweet. but we're not talking abt
actual roses. we're talking abt the form of that proposition.
xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com> Dec 10 01:41PM -0800
>
> So you don't have a citation.
i gave you more than one example from the NT where jesus is depicted
curing mental illness by casting out demons.
now you want to pretend i didn't. what's the matter with you, are you
"possessed"? nevertheless, if jesus thinks that's how mental illness
is cured then he was mistaken & that demonstrates that he couldn't
possibly be god. deal with that bag of apples.
Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> Dec 10 04:41PM -0500
> roses smelling sweet is contingent. it's possible for a rose not to
> smell sweet.
You post an artificial and forced distinction between "circumstantial
truth" and "necessary truth" as if the postulation would get you
around the issue Russell noted so well; I was careful to point out
that your forced and untenable re-labelling didn't in fact change the
clear and specific limitations of humanistic verification-ism.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> Dec 10 04:43PM -0500
> now you want to pretend i didn't. what's the matter with you, are you
> "possessed"?
Nope, just pointing out that your citations didn't support your premise.
Regards,
Brock
xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com> Dec 10 02:26PM -0800
> truth" and "necessary truth" as if the postulation would get you
> around the issue Russell noted so well;
russell's problem is he's hung up on the notion of absolute certitude.
certitude can only be *relative* to the degree there's a correlation
between ideas & actuality. the nature of reality makes absolute
certainty, impossible. if we don't have the complete truth abt things
then we can't ever assume that we have the final truth abt things. our
knowledge is accumalative & so subject to modifications when we get a
deeper understanding. your problem is that you're confusing two kinds
of truth. a fact is true by its correlation to objective reality. a
thing being logically true depends on the form of the proposition
being considered. something that is logically true can be
circumstantially false. all facts abt the world are circumstantially
true.
philosophy <smwilson@tpg.com.au> Dec 10 01:15PM -0800
>
> You don't think we live in separate realities, do you?
If you are asking me if my reality is different from yours, I would
say yes
my reality is different from yours. If you are asking me if my
reality is a
split reality, then I would say no it is not split, it is all one. I
am not sure
what you are getting at.
> God is real inmythought, but not in yours. I would even venture to
> say He is real inmyperception, though I expect you would disagree,
How could I? Your perception is yours, not mine.
Just as my perception is mine, not yours.
I can only speak for myself as far as this is concerned.
> and probably assert thatmythought aboutmyperception is erroneous.
No, I would say it is different. I could think it erroneous, but I
don't
know. You see, if you have a God thingy in your brain most of the
time, that is your choice. I have too much to do with my life to
allow
my brain to take me in that direction. Because perception is a
powerful dictate of the way we act, you will hopefully act in life
with
"goodness". The problem comes when you allow, through inaction
and belief, the church to harbour criminals, because your belief is
that the church can do no wrong. In that instance, I would definitely
say your perception is coloured, and erroneous.
> But reality is the same for both of us, or else it should not get the
> name, "reality."
No, our realities are different Joe. It is reality because it is true
for
me, but my reality is different from yours. It can't be anything else.
My reality is based on my experiences, my history, my story.
Your reality is based on your experiences, your history, your story.
Each one is different. We come to the table with different stories
and different expectations and beliefs based on those stories.
Our realities are different.
> There either is or is not God, in *the* reality.
The concept of God or lack thereof, is only one small aspect
of a person's reality. Well, in my case it is.
> It is not possible that we could both be wrong, if each of us chooses
> a side of a true disjunction.
You are assuming you know "truth", and I would dispute that.
I would say we both may have an idea of truth, but we will never
know full truth.
> correct to think He doesn't. So "neither may be right," I take to be
> impossible. Would you agree or not? If not, kindly say why.
I have belaboured that point enough, above, in the explanation
of reality and truth.
> Gravity is a fact of life. It would be absurd to assert that one is
> free to believe it or disbelieve it.
Just like evolution, eh?
> dictatorship to manifest, and when it does, it will include laity as
> well as clergy.
Not in my world view.
philosophy <smwilson@tpg.com.au> Dec 10 01:19PM -0800
> Well, you wouldn't be around to say yes or no, so the point is kind of
> moot.
That comment is based on your reality that there is a God.
My comment is based on my reality that there is no god.
> If God is God, then plainly He pre-existed man, so your remark begs
> the question of atheism, of course.
Please explain the comment on atheism.
philosophy <smwilson@tpg.com.au> Dec 10 01:20PM -0800
> the political system that the Romans used to justify the king or
> emperor's right to rule by proxy from god.
All that is true. However, we need to look at the current and
colloquial
use of the term, which actually has nothing to do with a god.
hucktunes <bob.huck@gmail.com> Dec 10 02:00PM -0800
Yes, its never had anything to do with god. It is about power and
dominion.
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> Dec 10 02:23PM -0800
> priestly pedophilia.
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/web/catholic-d...
Is this too your position:
"When a bishop comes into knowledge of one of his priests committing
the crime of child rape, the *first* thing he ought to do is remove
that priest from the position of free access to children. That priest
should be assigned a desk job in the chancery or something like that.
It is certainly NOT the right thing to do, to call the cops or the
authorities."
If so, would the following accurately state your position on nun rape?
"When a bishop comes into knowledge of parishioner raping a nun, the
*first* thing he ought to do is remove that person from the position
of free access to nuns. It is certainly NOT the right thing to do to
call the cops or the authorities."
hucktunes <bob.huck@gmail.com> Dec 10 02:14PM -0800
Paying for carbon will drive up the cost of every convenience and
necessity, from toilet paper to transportation. The gap between rich
and poor would become ever wider. I can envision a modern feudal
society where the poor masses are dependent on the good will of the
rich lords for a loan of carbon credits.
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> Dec 10 01:36PM -0800
> and that is why I say that that is what it equates to as far as I personally
> can tell.
Electricity is a physical thing. So if you want to say "the Holy
Spirit is like electricity" then fine, that's just more meaningless
religious drivel. But if you say, as you did, that the Holy spirit IS
electrical, then that's another matter, and the Holy Spirit's
existence can be tested for using electrical instruments.
> but for the studying of the Scripture - we could not ever know Jesus
> existed.
Too bad we don't live in that part of the multiverse.
philosophy <smwilson@tpg.com.au> Dec 10 01:32PM -0800
> Excerpts from Article:http://www.examiner.com/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m12...
>
There is no difference.
It's a reflection of their unthinking brains to claim what amounts
to exclusivity over Christmas Trees, considering the Christmas
Tree has little to do with their religion.
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> Dec 10 01:22PM -0800
> Actually, saying that it annoys christians was a throw-away line
> because christians themselves are the worst offenders.
What is the merit in offending those who offend one?
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> Dec 10 01:27PM -0800
> people here, you are missing something. this seems to be the sole
> reason that some come here, and really, they give atheism a bad name.
It is not clear whether people annoy others in order to gain pleasure
or whether annoying others is a side effect of attempting to attain
some other end (some end other than annoying people).
thea <thea.nob4@gmail.com> Dec 10 03:04PM -0600
> >
>
Sounds interesting -- have you ever been at a death bed and smelled hell
fire?
have you ever been at a death bed and seen the angels come and take someone
to heaven?
is the fact that they have us all sedated out of our minds when we die --
because we would be screaming in agony at what we are seeing - and starting
to burn??
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
