Brian63

First off, this is much further in-depth of a discussion on semantics than I generally ever prefer to engage in, but what the hell.



I would say that a definition being the "most inclusive" is not necessarily an advantage of that definition. Sometimes *precision* in a definition is more important and useful than *broadness* (or inclusiveness) is.



If you choose to define "banana" and "blackboard" by listing those attributes, that is great. That is not to say that those are the "correct" definitions though, just like a person's definition of "atheism" cannot be incorrect.

Well, many of the people that frequent this board, it seems to me, can tell the difference. However, it is only a small fraction of a minority of atheists in the country (or even the world) that frequent this board. Atheists that I have encountered in the real world or in the cyberworld outside of this board generally would probably call both kinds "atheists" as well, but they also would not understand the difference between those two definitions. If most atheists that you encounter in real life *DO* understand the difference, then we just have different experiences, is all.

Brian

HoosierGuy28

Mageth,

Ok, I actually took a little time to research your response concerning the resurrection of Christ. Actually, this has been a very good topic for discussion and I would encourage you to get other views on it. Now from my research, I have found pretty much what I was saying before in my first post concerning the view of Christ being crucified on Friday, but I needed to get a little more clarification for myself. I didn't take nearly enough time as I should have before.

Let me take a quote from a section of a book I've been reading concerning this same topic.

Now I know it probably seems kinda strange to you, because it seems somewhat odd to me too, but those are just the facts. I just gave you part of the analysis on it too. If you want more evidence for this view, I would encourage you to check out the book I gave a reference to and you'll see that their is much more support for this point of view.

Joel

HoosierGuy28

Stardust,

Yes, I would say they have free will and they got the boot because they chose to defy God.

As far as why God created humans, my best guess on this one would be for glory and fellowship. Probably similar to the reason parents have children.

So the relationship is that of us glorifying God and in return He takes care of us.

Thanks for the questions

Joel

HoosierGuy28

RRH,

Actually, I kinda enjoy it. And I want people to feel they can freely ask questions relating to Christianity. I may not always have the right answers or any answer at all, but I want to at least give it a shot. It's actually a great test of my faith and a great learning experience for me. I'm sure people will realize that I do have limits as to how much I can post, and my intent is to try to answer questions and responses in the order in which I receive them.

Well, most of the Christians I know don't consider it to be a religion. I certainly don't, but I don't take offense if someone calls it a religion. Personally, I'm happy to call an atheist whatever they want to be called (within reason). I don't see any reason to give anyone a label that they don't want to be given.

Thanks for your comments

Joel

jdawg2

If God required the murder of his son/himself in order to "forgive" us, why is this considered loving, especially when omnipotent gods have tons of other, less cruel possiblities?

And do you consider punishing innocent people for the crimes of others to be justice? Once again, especially if we're talking about an omnipotent god?

HoosierGuy28

Kosh,

Yes, I certainly do. Just because some things in the Bible don't seem realistic doesn't mean they didn't happen. Also, I do not believe in assuming any limits on God, and I would even be willing to say that God probably has a sense of humor. Jonah was ignorant in carrying out what God had asked him to do, and because of it, God sent a great fish and taught Jonah an important lesson. I know personally that if God sent a big fish to swallow me and carry me around a few days, I would definitely not be very compelled to ever tell God "No".

The story of Jonah also seems very credible to me for several other reasons. First, archeologists have found the city of Ninevah, and apparently it was a rather large city and could be dated back to biblical times. Some of the remains from the city show that at some point they were worshipping a fish-god known as Dagan. It seems likely that sending Jonah in a great fish would've been a great way to get their attention.

Also,the name "Oannes" has been found in some of their writings which is very similar to how Jonah is spelled in the Septuagint, in which it adds an "I" and is spelled "Ioannes".

A site you might want to check out concerning the account of Jonah:
<a href="http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/8jonah.html" target="_blank">http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/8jonah.html</a>

Thanks for the questions

Joel

Cipher Girl

Brian63 you said
I think you have your definitions, even commonly held ones, slightly incorrect. An agnostic is "one who does not know" as opposed to gnostic who is "one who knows". An agnostic can be religious or atheist.

An agnostic Christian is one who accepts that god can only be known by faith and not knowledge of the world. A gnostic Christian is one who believes that god can be proven by evidence in this world. I recall reading something about gnostism(?) being ruled a Christian heresy some time in the 400's. I think it is regared as a heresy because demanding evidence for god can show that god does not exist. Creationism anybody?

An agnostic atheist on the other hand is equivalent to the weak atheism position. There is no way to know if the supernatural is real since by its very definition it does not interact with the natural world. Defined as, "I'm not going to assume there is a god until there is evidence". The strong atheism position is define as "show me, I'm from Missouri" or "What do god and santa clause have in common?", answer "They don't exist."

Brian63, I'm not undecided about whether or not there is a god. I don't assume there is, so there isn't.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

Cipher Girl

Joel

Welcome to II. I've got a simple, easy question.

1) If god is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, why does evil exist in the world?

A simple answer will do, but it must not contain any logical fallacies or contradictions.

HoosierGuy28

Sandlewood,

You asked a lot of tough questions, and I'm going to attempt to give you a reasonable response to them.

Personally, I have no desire to see the words "under God" removed, but if they are, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I'm not very familiar with it, but I don't have a problem with from what I know of it. My understanding is that it will attempt to fund non-profit organizations and these organizations will offer charitable services to those in need. My understanding is also that this will lessen the need for the government to involve itself in offering charitable service. From my experience working with homeless shelters and similar organizations, I believe this is a positive thing. Trying to link people with services through government organizations can be like pulling teeth. Government organizations are usually very slow, the standards are sometimes unreasonably high, and they typically don't address all the needs of the people. In short, it's very impersonal and not very effective. But as I said before, I'm not very familiar with it, so I may be missing something.

I think studying the Bible is a great thing. If John Ashcroft, along with others, want to have a Bible study then great for them.

I guess that would depend on the curriculum. I believe in creation, so I surely wouldn't have a problem with it being taught in school. But again, I would really need to know what was contained in the curriculum before I could give an accurate response to that question.

I know that when I have children, they will more than likely be attending a Christian school, so no matter what is being taught in public schools, they won't be exposed to a lot of it.

I would say that it's a possiblity. It just depends what he/she has to offer. If that person represents something that directly conflicts with my faith, then I don't know that I would vote for him or her. If that person is neutral concerning my faith and the beliefs of others, then I wouldn't have a problem voting for them.

Thanks for the questions

Joel

Ronin

Doesn't this mean you should not have linked to that song without permission? Do you have permission? Am I misunderstanding the above?

No, it is not your misunderstanding ~ you are absolutely right.

In my haste, I failed to notice their polite request.

I will remove the direct song link until I hear from Ophelia.

Thank you.

edited to add that permission to link to the song offered was graciously granted.

Should the moderators have concern please reach me via email.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]</p>