David Mathews

Hello Helen,

I have been to the Field Musuem, the Musuem of Science and Industry and the Brookfield zoo. Chicago is a great city! I visited it several times in the early 90's.

Have you visited Starved Rock State Park?

<a href="http://www.iit.edu/~travel/srsp.html" target="_blank">Starved Rock State Park</a>

Starved Rock State Park has a lot of canyons, though I must say that the Grand Canyon & Zion National Park are more impressive.

Love,

David Mathews

diana

ME: Unless you're arguing that God has given us rules that don't apply to us.

David: God's rules do apply to us, they just don't apply to God. Is this a difficult concept for atheists?

Is that a "Yes, God has given us rules that don't apply to us," or "No, God has not given us rules that don't apply to us"?

YOU: If you want to know the point of the New Law read the book of Hebrews. If you want to know why the rules changed, read the book of Hebrews. If you want to know why there were rules in the first place, read the book of Romans.

In other words, you aren't familiar enough with your own doctrine to tell me yourself.

ME: In other words, I'm still waiting for you to explain, scripturally, why you think those who haven't heard or obeyed the gospel may still get tickets to heaven.

David: If you make a practice of repeating questions I will have to make a practice of repeating answers.

I asked the question again because I do not believe it has been answered, David. If you have, I do not accept that answer for reasons I have outlined to you. You must address my objections now. That's how the game is played.

David: Because God has not placed me under any special obligation to conform my understanding of the Scriptures with an atheist.

Nor, it would seem, to be certain that your interpretation of a supposedly divinely inspired book is internally consistent.

ME: Everybody has their notions of what different verses mean. If you disagree with mine, the way to go about contradicting my ideas is to state your take on the verse and why mine can't be right. Suggesting I haven't done my homework is simply rude.

So...how is my interpretation of the verse incorrect?

David: Your approach to interpreting the Scriptures is wrong because it is utterly simplistic. The Bible was not addressed to elementary school children so the rules of simple logic don't resolve the meaning of passages.

Ah, another insult. I note that you have not yet attempted to explain why my interpretation is incorrect. I'm beginning to think that the answer is "Because it contradicts what David Mathews wants to believe."

Logic is logic, whether you grasp it or not, David. Insult it (and me) all you wish, but Those Who Lurk are watching you, with each succeeding post, not answer my simple questions.

I suspect you have not addressed my interpretation of the verse because you cannot. Why else would you resort to insults?

David: Atheists who reject the gospel cannot get to heaven. Atheists who never heard or understood the gospel may be saved by God's limitless grace.

OK. Now I have the point of your doctrine down. You still haven't explained why God's rules apply only to those who were born in the right place at the right time. Scripturally, I mean.

You've produced verses that argue that God's grace is sufficient. You say the bible contains laws for man but those laws don't apply to God. Here's the catch, though: If God lays out laws for man, complete with very clear condemnation for all who do not obey those laws, then he doesn't go through with that, does that not make God a liar?

Either God meant it when he said "those who believeth not will be condemned" or he didn't. Which is it?

Here...I'll save you some trouble. Just put a check in the proper box:

[ ] Yes, God meant it when he said those who believe not will be condemned.

[ ] No, God was just kidding when he said those who believe not will be condemned.

ME: "But now he commands all people everywhere to repent." It would seem that remaining in ignorance no longer excludes one from any punishment.

David: That is your interpretation of the passage, isn't it?

You suggest it is an incorrect interpretation but again, you offer no counter-explanation. How disingenious.

ME: I asked for an example of my "doubtful" interpretation of the Scriptures, hopefully accompanied by a lucid explanation of why my interpretation is flawed.

I note you have not done so but opted instead to continue to cast (unsupported) doubt upon my understanding of the bible.

David: Unsupported doubt of your understandin of the Bible? Don't be silly. You have amply demonstrated your failure to understand the Bible.

If that were true, I suspect you'd have no problem pointing out my errors in reasoning. You have opted, instead, to suggest I have no more than a child's understanding of scripture--all without, I might add, your presumably superior interpretations of the same verses.

You really do just ignore those verses you don't like, don't you?

ME: This is a discussion board, David. You won't win an argument here or even gain any respect with unsupported accusations that your opponent doesn't know what she's talking about.

David: In cases (such as this thread) in which the observation is evidently true, the accusation has merit.

I do not see it as "evident." Since we're debating, you must support that which you claim is "evident" if I question your premise--and I do. Merely because my interpretation seems crazy to you is not sufficient grounds to dismiss it out of hand. It's quite logical to me, and to many, many other people, I might add. If you wish to make a case to the contrary, you need more than implications that I'm too simplistic to argue with.

What is your interpretation, David? Or do you even have one?

David: You don't trust in reason because reason (yours and everyone else's) is not intrinsically trustworthy. Throughout history people (including great intellects) have reasoned themselves into error, foolishness and sometimes even death.

So now you're omniscient? You're telling me what I do and don't trust in? Wow. I didn't realize I was talking with God himself.

As I said before, I do trust in reason until something more reasonable comes along. I didn't say it was perfect, but it is the best thing I have to work with. I'll keep it and use it until a tool for determining truth proves itself superior to reason.

Judging from your words above, you do not trust reason. That's your choice. Please do not project that choice to me.

ME: I'm making the argument that the bible clearly states that there are certain steps that must be taken to attain salvation. This applies under the New Covenant, which went into effect after Jesus' death. Jesus was still alive at that point, and still under the old law.

David: Oh my, Diana, I think that you are guilty of a serious error. Have you ever studied the Old Law & the religion of the Jews? I think that you might want gain a little knowledge of the context of Jesus' action on the cross before dismissing the act as irrelevant.

He who directs his opponent to read up on anything (1) is not familiar enough with the subject to provide a synopsis himself, but nevertheless (2) wishes to cast dispersion upon his opponent's position.

David: The Bible is not incorrect, your interpretation of the passage is absurd.

Once again...please put your money where your mouth is. How is my interpretation absurd? Perhaps I can learn something here. But how can I hear, unless I be taught?

Being dismissed out of hand does not qualify as "teaching," I'm afraid.

d

David Mathews

Hello Diana,

David: Now that is a difficult question, Diana.

David: That's how the game is played? Good that you are familiar with the rules.

David: That is a good observation. Is your interpretation of the Scriptures internally consistent?

David; I suppose it is incorrect, but if that is how you want to interpret the passage for yourself go ahead and do so.

David: Those people who are reading should enjoy reading our dialogue.

David: Perhaps lack of interest ...

David: No. The President has the power of Pardon but that does not make him violate the Constitution or Laws of our country.

David: Good that you made the task so simple, Diana. I was getting lost in your more complicated legalistic prose.

David: Am I obligated to offer a counter-explanation? Do you know how many years Christians have argued about the meaning of the Scriptures?

David: You offered your interpretation of the passage. I didn't even ask for it, Diana.

David: The mere fact that I interpret these passages differently from you does not indicate that I ignore them.

David: Oh.

David: I have already offered it to you, though perhaps you didn't notice.

David: Could you provide some evidence of your own trust in reason? I'd like to see it in operation, if that is possible ...

David: I think you meant aspersion rather than dispersion, Diana.

David; If you are in need of a teacher -- which evidently you are -- you might want to find one suitable to your needs.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

Have you ever visited England? When was the last time you visited England?

Love,

David Mathews

HelenM

Originally posted by David Mathews:

Hello Helen,

I have been to the Field Musuem, the Musuem of Science and Industry and the Brookfield zoo. Chicago is a great city! I visited it several times in the early 90's.

I'm glad you like it. Me too!

You never were at the Aquarium even though you like Aquariums? It is a good one; it has an oceanarium attached which is quite unusual, I think; it has daily dolphin and beluga whale shows. And it has an excellent new exhibit on the Amazon and also they are currently adding on a new part about the Philippines.

Have you visited Starved Rock State Park?

<a href="http://www.iit.edu/~travel/srsp.html" target="_blank">Starved Rock State Park</a>

Starved Rock State Park has a lot of canyons, though I must say that the Grand Canyon & Zion National Park are more impressive.[/b]

I've heard of it and it sounds like one of the more interesting places to visit near Chicago but we haven't, so far.

In fact we are going to the Grand Canyon in a couple of weeks. We'd like to see Zion and Bryce Canyon NPs also but we decided to visit Arches instead, this time. We didn't want to do as much driving as would be involved to do both.

I have seen the Grand Canyon once before. My favorite National Park I have been to is Glacier. My favorite scenery is mountains.

Have you ever visited England? When was the last time you visited England?

Um - do you mean, have I visited apart from being being born and raised there?

I visit regularly (every year or two, at least) since I have a number of family members there that I want to see as often as is feasible given what travelling overseas entails.

Have you ever been to England, David?

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

I gathered that you were born and raised in England. I have never been to England but it would be a wonderful place to visit.

There's so much history in England, with Stonehenge and all of the neolithic sites and the Roman occupation. Glastonbury is another place of great significance that I have heard a lot about.

Love,

David Mathews

HelenM

Perhaps you will get to visit sometime, David. It sounds like you would enjoy it.

I have been fascinated since I was a child by the history and ancient ruins of past cultures/civilizations.

love
Helen

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

We certainly have this much in common. I became curious of the ancient civilizations in elementary school. The first Greek classic that I read was Plato's Republic. From that point on I was hooked. I later read Herodotus The Histories and Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War while I was in college. Since college I began exploring the writings of the nations of the Middle East, then India, China, Japan and the Mayan & Incan civilizations of the New World.

Love,

David Mathews

HelenM

It sounds as if you have read more than me about ancient civilizations and cultures - and about different ones.

That is only one of the things I am interested in and I don't have time to pursue all of them.

love
Helen

G B Mayes

Atheists in heaven? David Matthews, I don't know whether you are serious or pulling someone's leg, but either way that's one wacky idea. It is not only not supported in scripture, it is at direct opposition to plainly stated scripture. Many ideas are open to interpretation but this is not one of them.

--Brent