HelenM

Is that a problem for you?

That's between you and the LORD, I guess.

I do? Where did you read that I do?

I don't thank 'the mythical Jesus' for anything - that would be a waste of time!

James wrote that teachers will be judged more strictly. I'm willing to take the risk.

But then, he also wrote mercy triumphs over judgement

But am I allowed to be a teacher at all? Still, all I did was post Bible verses.

take care
Helen

NOGO

I do not write simply to refute Bede's idea. I know Bede will never change his mind and neither will you. I also consider that there are other people reading this. When Bede says that "he will meet me half way" or "go and read some more", he is using silly tricks in the hope of conveying the idea that he has the upper hand in the arguement. Actually his arguement in untenable and I don't want anybody reading this, believing that Bede should be taken seriously.

You should know, Radorth, that if you walk out of an arguement you cannot hope to have the last word.

leonarde

I know nothing about the religious beliefs (if any
of) of Kepler, Descartes etc. but some time ago
I looked into the religious outlooks of Isaac
Newton and Blaise Pascal. Each would score a perfect 10 on the "religious-fanatic-ometer". They
make many of today's "fundies" seem mild in comparison.

Cheers!

lpetrich

Is this about Blaise Pascal before or after his becoming a born-again Jansenist? He had become one as a result of a horse-carriage accident.

Before he converted, he did lots of good mathematics and science; afterward, he only did mathematics to block out the pain of a toothache.

Radorth

Thank you.

Lil ol' innocent Helen. But that isn't preaching. Man I'm just not getting this. Posting 7 or 8 Bible verses for the singular purpose of questioning a Christian''s personal character is apparetly permissible here. I'll keep that in mind.

Rad

HelenM

If I am then I guess Jesus wasted his time up on that cross...

Evidently your IQ is not the problem, though...

Why wouldn't it be? There's no 'ban' on posting verses here.

You may as well

take care
Helen

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Ron Garrett

Brilliant men have believed all manner of nensense in their day. I maintain that religious belief and intellect are compartmentalized. One does not calculate one'a way to Yahweh is the cretor and Jesus his begotten son.[/quote] Some brilliant people remain humble enough to believe they can't know or prove everything.[/quote]And some stupid people do not remain humble and think they already know everything and have no need to prove it. I completely agree. The superstitious impulse to deify him and the religion built about him and instutionalized are at fault. The fault is not with the man Jesus, of which we know little. THe fault is in religion itself of any stripe. Apologetics does not aim at the atheist, but at reinforcing the faithful in his or her belief, or as often at the nominal Christian. Apologetics asuumes at the outset that te reader in some way accepts the authority of scripture and the supernatural view. Neither Locke nor anyone else can demonstrate how one can arrive at Christianity other than via passive acceptance of the authority of scripture, the church, or the mere say so of others. Unlikely he was speaking to atheists at a time when such were jailed and pilloried for non-conformity.

Radorth

I don't think that. I just think you are cultivating the world's friendship here at my expense.

When all else fails, make a legalistic or technical argument.

Criminy Helen. Look where you have brought the discussion, and of course Jesus said we are suppose to resolve our issues against another privately, but I see you haven't got that far. I suspect the world is complimenting you and laughing at us both. Try a personal message next time.

Radorth

Radorth

Some brilliant people remain humble enough to believe they can't know or prove everything.[/quote]And some stupid people do not remain humble and think they already know everything and have no need to prove it. [/QUOTE]

I don't suppose many skeptics qualify in your mind although they contradict themselves at every turn, believe the most extraordinary and unproven assertions, and basically coomit every intellectual sin that I supposedly do. Is it possible they were Christians strictly because of the same intellectual integrity and humility which led them to other discoveries?

You call it "passive acceptance" but there is no evidence they simply switched off their brains when it came to the Bible. And why, when they do buck the system, do you simply call them closet heretics? Which is it? Maybe neither?

Can you name five brilliant and progressive-minded people in the "age of enlightenment" who believed in Hercules, or some other non-Christian mythical god? Do you see any difference at all in the evidence for Christ and Hercules? Do you ever wonder why brilliant men and women even today see much more evidence for the first and than the second? It is hardly uncommon for an atheist to convert and testify s/he was no being very intellectually honest as an atheist. Has one ever said s/he had not given Hecules a fair chance? How do you explain the writings of Durant and Wells? Is it possible they are more intellectually honest than you?

Radorth

K

Radorth:

This argument puts restraints of time and location on finding brilliant and progressive-minded people. It is really only saying that there were a large number of Christians during the Enlightenment. I could easily pose similar questions:

Can you name five brilliant and progressive-minded ancient Greeks who believed in Christ?

or

Can you name five dull-witted and non-progressive-minded people in the "age of enlightenment" who believed in Hercules, or some other non-Christian mythical god?