Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2008 12:07 On Jul 3, 9:00�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > (HUGE amount of unnecessary quoting snipped) > > > The Gnostiocs wrote a bunch of garbage about their theory that Jesus > > Christ did not suffer or die on the cross because he was a God. �They > > were trying to combine Christianity with Greek mythology. > > The Catholic Church, on the other hand, tried to merge it with as many > different contemporary religions as possible, in order to make > Christianity an easier pill to swallow for "pagan" worshippers. At least > the Gnostics had the style to call on classical influences! > > TLA That is correct about the Catholic Church. Fortunately, they were able to keep the Bible pretty much intact. Robert B. Winn
From: Daniel Mandic on 3 Jul 2008 12:18 Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:59 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 1:28 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 11:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 2, 12:13 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 6:43 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 11:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 1:14 pm, BuddyThunder > > > > > > > > <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:34 am, BuddyThunder > > > > > > > > > > <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 30, 12:25 am, BuddyThunder > > > > > > > > > <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jun 28, 6:06�pm, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun > > > > > > > > > 2008 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>> On Jun 28, > > > > > > > > > 12:50?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT), > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>> wrote in > > > > > > > > > alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:17?am, Free > > > > > > > > > Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On > > > > > > > > > Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > > > > > > <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:26?am, BuddyThunder > > > > > > > > > <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:42?pm, > > > > > > > > > BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am > > > > > > > > > upset by people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that the > > > > > > > > > Bible is anything more than mythology and try ?to > > > > > > > > > impose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > beliefs on me ?using the Bible as evidence. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can someone impose a belief on > > > > > > > > > you? ?Just believe whatever you want to > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The wrong > > > > > > > > > part is when people attempt to use the myth to > > > > > > > > > formulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy or > > > > > > > > > indoctrinate children or inform foreign policy. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, actually they use fables. ?The > > > > > > > > > apostles Paul said they would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> turned > > > > > > > > > to fables in the last days. ?A fable is a story about > > > > > > > > > animals >>>>>>>>>>>>> like the story about monkeys > > > > > > > > > turning into humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you're > > > > > > > > > ignorant about evolution. Colour me surprised. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what way am I ignorant about > > > > > > > > > evolution? >>>>>>>>>> Monkeys and humans do share a > > > > > > > > > common ancestor. Your denial of the fact >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > does not change that fact.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Charles > > > > > > > > > Darwin was not my ancestor. >>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > Evolution happens. Learn to deal with reality.- Hide > > > > > > > > > quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> I > > > > > > > > > never have believed in evolution. �I think it is a > > > > > > > > > fable, just as >>>>>>> Paul said it was. >>>>>> Paul > > > > > > > > > knew nothing about it. You mock the Bible with such > > > > > > > > > silly >>>>>> interpretations of it.- Hide quoted text > > > > > > > > > - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> I just believe > > > > > > > > > what Paul said. You seem a little upset that I do > > > > > > > > > not >>>>> believe your fable. >>>> Can you please > > > > > > > > > identify what he said about it? Please?- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> 2 Tim 4:3 For > > > > > > > > > the time will come when they will not endure sound > > > > > > > > > >>> doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they > > > > > > > > > heap to themselves >>> teachers, having itching ears; > > > > > > > > > >>> 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the > > > > > > > > > truth, and shall be >>> turned unto fables. >> I > > > > > > > > > can't see any mention of evolution. I can't even see > > > > > > > > > any description >> of the theory, or even a theistic > > > > > > > > > strawman description. Can you help me >> out? You > > > > > > > > > made a claim that seems difficult to substantiate.- > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I think we are getting into subject matter > > > > > > > > > > that is too difficult for you. Maybe we should go > > > > > > > > > > back to Hezekiah's tunnel. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not struggling, maybe you could point out the > > > > > > > > > verse where evolution is singled out. Maybe he's > > > > > > > > > talking about the germ theory of disease. I'm sure > > > > > > > > > you believe that demons are behind illness, rather > > > > > > > > > than pathogens.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Well, Paul said that in the last days, men would be > > > > > > > > turned to fables to explain things. So today we see > > > > > > > > science explaining most things by fables. > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > > > Please explain how "evolution" counts as a fable? And > > > > > > > we'll show you how you understanding of evolution is > > > > > > > horribly wrong. > > > > > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Well, as Paul pointed out, in the last days men would be > > > > > > unable to endure sound doctrine and would devise a fable to > > > > > > try to explain the existence of mankind without a God. > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > That doesn't relate evolution to a fable. > > > > > Do you ever answer a question that isn't just from your own > > > > > imagination? > > > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > It happened just the way Paul said it would. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > If you want to converse with the voices in your head, could you > > > just leave out alt.atheism in your replies? Your posts are > > > clearly not related to anything you're clicking reply on. > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > As I understand it I have given a response to one of your posts that > > does not comform to atheistic rules. > > Robert B. Winn > > Those would be those rules about not lying blatantly? > They're more like guidelines, and more Human than specifically > atheist. > > Al atheist??? is this a definition of an old Roman doctor class-type!? --
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jul 2008 12:21 The Loan Arranger wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > (HUGE amount of unnecessary quoting snipped) > >> The Gnostiocs wrote a bunch of garbage about their theory that Jesus >> Christ did not suffer or die on the cross because he was a God. They >> were trying to combine Christianity with Greek mythology. > > The Catholic Church, on the other hand, tried to merge it with as many > different contemporary religions as possible, in order to make > Christianity an easier pill to swallow for "pagan" worshippers. At least > the Gnostics had the style to call on classical influences! > All the Gnostics said was you didn't need all this doctrine and dogma, you could 'know' god directly. \ Which is the sense I suspect they meant it, is of course true. Howver that didn;tr sut te Romans, who didn't really care about any god at all: they wanted unification, ciilization, and pacification, and a sword in one hand and a bible in the other was perfect: If you could meld that into whatever local nature spirits the Druids had going, so much the better. There have always been a host of angels, urges and demi-urges and latterly saints, to paste over the original pagan gods. Any you found antisocial, became devils and demons, of course. For a so-called monotheistic religion, there are a lot of powerful beings in the Xtian pantheon ;-) > TLA
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jul 2008 12:22 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:00�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> (HUGE amount of unnecessary quoting snipped) >> >>> The Gnostiocs wrote a bunch of garbage about their theory that Jesus >>> Christ did not suffer or die on the cross because he was a God. �They >>> were trying to combine Christianity with Greek mythology. >> The Catholic Church, on the other hand, tried to merge it with as many >> different contemporary religions as possible, in order to make >> Christianity an easier pill to swallow for "pagan" worshippers. At least >> the Gnostics had the style to call on classical influences! >> >> TLA > > That is correct about the Catholic Church. Fortunately, they were > able to keep the Bible pretty much intact. Of course. They *wrote* it and edited out what they didn't want in it. Why change a winning formula? > Robert B. Winn
From: Steve O on 3 Jul 2008 13:32
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:9681aa3b-cfac-407e-a7df-6e75204e7867(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > As I understand it I have given a response to one of your posts that > does not comform to atheistic rules. > Robert B. Winn What "atheistic rules"?? If you believe there is a rulebook, please point it out to me, I'd be interested in reading it, or maybe it's yet another figment of your rabid imagination. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack, Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence "I have a miraculous picture of Jesus - if you look really closely at the face, you can see a burnt tortilla" |