All,

I have added another new feature to the CBA web site, called the Apologetics
Answer Alert (AAA). This feature draws attention to a recent book or article
attacking some aspect of Christianity that merits an apologetics response.
The first AAA concerns a newspaper opinion piece that argues that the Ten
Commandments are antithetical to American values. For details, visit the
home page of our web site (see link below).

In Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics
Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net

TL,

Yes, I agree our posts were getting rather drawn out, and I was having
difficulty finding the time to reply. I think part of that has to do
with the whole interwoven nature of Christian theology - I don't believe
you can take one part and leave out the rest. There's an
interconnectedness to it... keeping on topic, then:

You say that the Trinity is impossible because Jesus wouldn't have had a
body at one point in history, and bodiless beings are impossible to you.
I said bodiless beings are possible with a spiritual realm, but you
don't believe in a spiritual realm either, just the physical. Now I ask
you how to prove the physical realm, because if the spiritual realm
exists, it would follow that it is a form of reality somewhat like the
physical. If there can't be a sufficient test other than "you can feel
it," for the physical realm, why scream bloody murder when the same
proof is used for the spiritual? Again, it's not like we're talking some
foreign idea here, but one that spans cultures, peoples, and languages.
Just like the physical realm. It's just not logical to use double
standards like that.

--


  - Bryon Jr.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy
is understanding."
Proverbs 9:10 (KJV)

--- JesusTrance <jesustrance@...> wrote:
> You say that the Trinity is impossible because Jesus
> wouldn't have had a
> body at one point in history, and bodiless beings
> are impossible to you.

There is no evidence for them in the first place
except in some people's fantasies.

> I said bodiless beings are possible with a spiritual
> realm, but you
> don't believe in a spiritual realm either, just the
> physical.

Because every bit of evidence apologists have drummed
up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
miserably.

> Now I ask
> you how to prove the physical realm, because if the
> spiritual realm
> exists, it would follow that it is a form of reality
> somewhat like the
> physical.

Predictability.  You throw the ball into the air a
hundred times, it comes back a hundred times.  No
chance of it flying off into space.  That's one test.


> If there can't be a sufficient test other
> than "you can feel
> it," for the physical realm, why scream bloody
> murder when the same
> proof is used for the spiritual?

Because that fallaciously equivocates on the meaning
of the term "feel".  When you "feel" a tree, that is
not the same thing as "feeling" that some invisible
person is in a room with you.

> Again, it's not
> like we're talking some
> foreign idea here, but one that spans cultures,
> peoples, and languages.
> Just like the physical realm.

dreams also span cultures, peoples, and languages.
Does that mean there is a real place outside our minds
where dreams take place?

  It's just not logical
> to use double
> standards like that.

I agree it's illogical to equate "I feel the presence
of a loved one who died several years ago" and "this
sandpaper feels rough".




__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, JesusTrance
<jesustrance@w...> wrote:
> TL,
>
> Yes, I agree our posts were getting rather drawn out, and I was
having
> difficulty finding the time to reply. I think part of that has to
do
> with the whole interwoven nature of Christian theology - I don't
believe
> you can take one part and leave out the rest. There's an
> interconnectedness to it...

I don't usually post to the list, but I thought I'd offer a resource
I'm currently reading.  It is the best I've read on topic and that
is:

The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship.
Robert Letham (P&R, 2004; ISBN#: 0-8755-2000-6).

Here <http://www.leithart.com/archives/001041.php> is a review of
the book.

In Christ,
Jeff Downs
Resource Index/Blog, <http://www.rctr.org>
Countercult Apologetics Blog, <http://counter-cult.blogspot.com/>

All,

I will be on the Apologetics.com radio broadcast speaking on the
resurrection of Jesus in a few hours, Saturday morning from midnight to 2
am. It can be heard on KKLA 99.5 FM in the Los Angeles area or online at
http://www.kkla.com.

In Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics
Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net

>   TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
> first place
>   except in some people's fantasies.
>
>   J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
> circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
> the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
> However, what one accepts as evidence depends
> entirely on their presuppositions.

Don't try to run out the back door.  Science his
discovered many things people didn't know about
before.  Just because your presuppositions get in the
way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
and force a change of mind.

> Yours are natural
> presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
> the supernatural.

Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
importance.  They are not.  Show me good evidence and
I will re-assess my presuppositions.

> Presenting evidential arguments
> to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
> the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
> autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
> not accept God.

Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
who became Christians because of what they called
"overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
write after their conversion....Remember Josh
McDowell?

> We don't answer the fool according
> to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
> rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
> folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
> worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
> yours?

Really?  You intend to show the futility of my world
view?  Did you suddenly discover that there are
arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
presuppositions?  I thought you just said a few
seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
natural man will not and cannot accept the
supernatural?

>   TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
> have drummed
>   up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
>   miserably.
>
>   J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You?  If
> God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
> that *is* proof of God.

The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
was about 5 years old.

You said you would show the futility of the
naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

Please procede to do so.  The only way you can do it
is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
data on or in the cosmos.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

>   TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
>first place
>   except in some people's fantasies.
>
>J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
>circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
>the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
>However, what one accepts as evidence depends
>entirely on their presuppositions.

TL wrote: Don't try to run out the back door.  Science his
discovered many things people didn't know about
before.  Just because your presuppositions get in the
way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
and force a change of mind.

J. Sloan:  I am not running out the back door TL, I was pointing out the
nature of your ad-hominen attack.  One which has essentially continued in
your latest response.  Saying things like, "...except in some people's
fantasies", accusing people of running out the back door and claiming that I
realize how "utterly weak" theistic proofs are, *is* attacking the character
and intelligence of theists in general.  You may choose to deny this, but it
will speak well for you if you do.  The point that I was making is that what
one accepts as evidence depends entirely on their presuppositions.  You have
presuppositions (naturalistic) and so do I (supernatural).

You are correct when you say that science has made discoveries that were not
   known before (and will likewise make new discoveries that we do not know
now) and I am glad that you  brought up science because it is an excellent
place to examine our presuppositions.  As mentioned, your presuppositions
are naturalistic, so how is it that science is possible if all that exists
is matter in motion?  Science itself *presupposes* laws that govern how
matter itself behaves, yet if atheism were true, laws of any kind should not
exist because we live in a blind, purposeless universe which is the result
of *time plus chance,* not laws that govern our universe.  Where do Natures
Laws come from?  Why do they exist? Atheism cannot answer this; the only
answer atheism can give is that there are "no laws of physics, that there is
only matter." However, if this is true, then if there is no matter, then
there are no properties *of anything.*  Furthermore, this theory would
undermine much our current understanding of physics, laws of nature, quantum
theory (which postulates in part that you can get something from nothing.
Which would be absurd because "properties" would not exist if matter did not
exist), theories of the mind and consciousness, and can't answer why the
laws themselves do not change even though matter itself is dynamic.

The problem for you, as an atheist, is explaining how science is possible at
all if atheism were true without begging the question.  If I told you that:

(i) The Bible says that God exists.
(ii) The Bible is the Word of God.
(iii) Therefore, God exists.

You would likely point out that I am begging the question because one of
premises assumes the truth of my conclusion.  Begging the question would not
be acceptable as a *rational justification* so how do you conduct science
and induction without begging the question TL?  Without begging the
question, how do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow?  How do you know
that when you throw a ball up in the air tomorrow that it will fall back to
the earth?  You see, you must assume the uniformity of nature (without
which, science would not be possible) and yet you, as an atheist, cannot
with begging the question, which is not a rational justification for
assuming the uniformity of nature.

>Yours are natural
>presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
>the supernatural.

TL wrote: Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
importance.  They are not.  Show me good evidence and
I will re-assess my presuppositions.

J. Sloan: I have shown you good evidence TL, we are having this conversation
which would not be possible if atheism were true.  However, the nature and
extent of your presuppositions will not allow you to accept rational
evidence.  You want to argue evidentially using your supposed autonomous
reasoning which has already rejected the existence of God.  Thus, I do not
meet you on this "common ground" because it (common ground) does not exist.
   Our presuppositions are what determines everything that we will accept as
rational, evidence, etc. and are of "paramount importance".  As in the
example I gave using science, I am not asking *what*evidence there is for
science (we both agree that there are laws of science, that science is
possible, etc.), I am asking, *what are the necessary preconditions* that
make science possible at all.  Atheism does not have the necessary
preconditions, Christian Theism does.


>Presenting evidential arguments
>to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
>the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
>autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
>not accept God.

TL wrote: Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
who became Christians because of what they called
"overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
write after their conversion....Remember Josh
McDowell?

J. Sloan:  What are my "Van Tilian assumptions" and why are they false?

>We don't answer the fool according
>to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
>rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
>folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
>worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
>yours?

TL wrote: Really?  You intend to show the futility of my world
view?

J. Sloan: Yes, I do.

TL wrote: Did you suddenly discover that there are
arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
presuppositions?  I thought you just said a few
seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
natural man will not and cannot accept the
supernatural?

J. Sloan: That's correct, the natural man cannot and will not accept the
supernatural (total depravity).  That doesn't stop me from demonstrating the
   futility of your worldview however.  I can't convince a dead man that he's
dead, but I can put a stethoscope on his chest and objectively demonstrate
that he is in fact dead. The atheist knows of the existence of God, they
have simply suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.

>   TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
>have drummed
>   up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
>   miserably.
>
>   J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You?  If
>God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
>discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
>that *is* proof of God.

TL wrote: The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

J. Sloan:  Which is further proof that God exists.

TL wrote: The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
was about 5 years old.

J. Sloan:  Which again, is further proof that God exists.  If God didn't
exist, you would have had a conversation about the tooth-fairy.

TL wrote: You said you would show the futility of the
naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

Please procede to do so.  The only way you can do it
is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
data on or in the cosmos.

J. Sloan: See our discussion on science, which would not be possible if
atheism were true.

~ J. Sloan


Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

>   TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
> first place
>   except in some people's fantasies.
>
>   J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
> circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
> the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
> However, what one accepts as evidence depends
> entirely on their presuppositions.

Don't try to run out the back door.  Science his
discovered many things people didn't know about
before.  Just because your presuppositions get in the
way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
and force a change of mind.

> Yours are natural
> presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
> the supernatural.

Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
importance.  They are not.  Show me good evidence and
I will re-assess my presuppositions.

> Presenting evidential arguments
> to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
> the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
> autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
> not accept God.

Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
who became Christians because of what they called
"overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
write after their conversion....Remember Josh
McDowell?

> We don't answer the fool according
> to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
> rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
> folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
> worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
> yours?

Really?  You intend to show the futility of my world
view?  Did you suddenly discover that there are
arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
presuppositions?  I thought you just said a few
seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
natural man will not and cannot accept the
supernatural?

>   TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
> have drummed
>   up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
>   miserably.
>
>   J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You?  If
> God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
> that *is* proof of God.

The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
was about 5 years old.

You said you would show the futility of the
naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

Please procede to do so.  The only way you can do it
is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
data on or in the cosmos.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Those on this list might be interested in a FREE conference scheduled
for June 4, 2005, 9am-2pm.  Theme of the conference is "An Apology to
the World" and featured speakers will be Kerry Gilliard, Ozzie Osgood
and Jeff Downs.

Conference Website is located here
<http://www.rctr.org/conference.htm>
and there is also a brochure (Word doc) here
<http://www.rctr.org/brochure.doc> that can be downloaded from the
site.

Please let others know about the conference.  Any questions, direct
them to me <jeff@...>.

Thanks,
Jeff Downs
Member - Calvary OPC, Middletown PA <http://www.calvaryopc.com>
Resource Index/Blog, <http://www.rctr.org>

Can you PROVE conclusively that macro evolution happened? Can you
prove the "big bang" happened? Based on basic scientific principles if
the big bang did happen wouldent there have had to have been a
catalyst? If so what was ITS catalyst? Simple, basic , established
scientific principles and facts argue against you , yet you proclaim
science as your god?I will never understand this perversion of the
very religion you claim to follow simply to fit the egomaniacal
desires of man.


-jay



1 thessalonians 5:17

Jay,

You wrote:

<< Can you PROVE conclusively that macro evolution happened? Can you prove
the "big bang" happened? Based on basic scientific principles if the big
bang did happen wouldent there have had to have been a catalyst? If so what
was ITS catalyst? Simple, basic , established scientific principles and
facts argue against you , yet you proclaim science as your god?I will never
understand this perversion of the very religion you claim to follow simply
to fit the egomaniacal desires of man. >>

First, it is unclear to whom these questions and criticisms are directed.
Your subject heading is "question for naturalist," but then you accuse
someone of a "perversion of the very religion you claim to follow."

Second, your post is hostile in tone, which is unacceptable here. If you
wish to engage people in discussion, you may do so here, but you must show
some common courtesy.

In Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics
Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net

All,

I should have let you know about this sooner, but tonight at 6 pm California
time I will be talking on Paltalk. I have never used this service before,
but it looks like it could be interesting. I will be able to talk online and
you will be able to listen and post questions and comments at the same time.
Depending on how things go, I may consider doing this again, perhaps even
setting up a live online debate. Tonight, I will be talking a little about
the ministry of the Center for Biblical Apologetics, focusing on some of the
subjects I have been addressing recently in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses,
and inviting questions or comments. I believe the discussion will run a
couple of hours or so.

Everyone here is invited to listen in and participate. You can sign up at
http://www.paltalk.com. Download the free Paltalk Messenger program (the
current one is 7.0.4, I believe). Then from the Paltalk Messenger, click on
the "Pals" tab and search for "RobBowman." I think that will be the easiest
way to find me. I will be in a Group that will be established tonight for
the discussion.

In Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics
Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net

Robert,
My post was made to teh only person who had called themselves a
naturalist in the last couple of posts in the forum.The term
perversion of your religion ( paraphrase) was directed at naturalists
who clearly worship and have faith in science. My tone was hardly out
of line and while blunt certainly wasnt out of line. Remember offense
is taken NOT given ,that said youre terse response to my post left
quite a bad taste in my mouth and while i appreciate your accepting me
into the group i will take my leave now .May God bless you.


-jay


1 thessalonians 5:17

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Bowman"
<robertbowman@v...> wrote:
> All,
>
> I should have let you know about this sooner, but tonight at 6 pm
California
> time I will be talking on Paltalk.

Rob, is what you did last night avaible online anywhere?

Thanks,
Jeff Downs
Resource Index/Blog, <http://www.rctr.org>

Jeff,

No, what I did last night on Paltalk was live and not recorded.

Perhaps next time (I think there will be one) we'll see if someone can
record it.

In Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics
Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net

Hi, Ross here, it's my first post on this board. This is mainly meant
for Rob Bowman but does not exclude anyone else. I saw the file and
article of Sharpe's report re Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1, which I have
read, it is yet another attack on he Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
Having read the text of these verses of Scripture it is obvious to me
who the subject of the context is ( Jesus )and one has only to follow the
story line and realise that one is reading the NT, which is part of
Christology and both are synonymous. Why does it need defending? Why
would one be surprised to find the subject of George Washington
appearing in a Book about George Washington? Why read the New
Testement and then be in denial of the subject of Jesus Christ appearing
continually?
  To read the NT and not believe it is anyone's perogative
but to read the NT and try to refute it, is deliberate mischief and
deliberate blasphemy. To the non believer, blasphemy is not a concern
that ever seems to bother them, and the denial of Christ is also the
denial of the Holy Spirit which is unforgivable, as is the denial of
the Trinity, for they are the Three who testify to the Truth in all.
  The Bible really needs no defence, it is defended by the Word of God
and by God Himself in all Three Persons of God. However the
mistranslated and unauthorised versions or imitations of the bible are
a seperate subject and must be rejected rather than defended, the
refutation of such imitation bibles is easily found by the antitype
that advocate them and try to pass them off as the true word of God
when they are, by deliberate distraction, proposing many false claims
of offense against the Word of God. In this they are not objecting to
the Bible itself but to God Himself and are so begiuling as to
convince the world that Christians are on the wrong road to no
where,but they are nowhere, because they have no alternative to offer
for Salvation, as Jesus is the Only One ->Joh 6:68  Then Simon Peter
answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of
eternal life.
  With no offense to anyone, the need to be a scholar of some sort is
not necessary to achieve Salvation but rather the need is to belive
simply that Jesus Christ is Our Lord ( whom we must completly obey and
follow ) and Savior ( who suffered and died for us on the cross, was
buried and resurrected to life everlasting ) and bingo that's all
there is to it,. I do however admit that, keeping oneself pure and
ready for the Kingdom of God is the battle thereafter, but God is
mercifull and forgiving if we BELIEVE it. Actually, people that do
refute the Bible are in a way a good thing for Christians in that they
test our Faith in Jesus, He did foretell us that these types would and
will come and test us, put us down, curse Him and all that, so that we
can defend our personal faith by and with the knowlege of the
scriptures by reading the scriptuires continually.I have found that by
even reading over a few verses again later on that a deeper and
clearer menaing appears, and this overflows to other verses which may
have been a bit difficult, like it snowballs along, the more we read.
cheers
Ross

So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
getting messages about a month ago from here.

skepticdude



__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html

Replying to TL (skepticdude),

On 7 Jun 2005 at 23:22, you said:

> So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
> getting messages about a month ago from here.

Personally, I'm kind of glad that it slowed up a bit. When I get too
many messages, I don't read _any_ of them. And believe me, life has
been busy enough for me lately!

--
Eric Pement

-----Original Message-----
From: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of TL
Sent: June 8, 2005 2:23 AM
To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [biblicalapologetics] slow list or kicked off?

So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
getting messages about a month ago from here.

skepticdude

Some Questions For The Believer


1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
a
thing exists?

2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?

3) How can something that cannot be described be said to
exist?

4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming
to the "one true religion," why do you think your beliefs are the
correct ones?

5) Since these religions make opposing claims, can more than
one of
them be right?

6) If you feel "in your heart" that your religion is the right one,
how do you answer those of other faiths who claim the same
thing?

7) How is it possible to settle the debate as to which of these
religions, if any, is correct?

8) Why does your god allow all these false religions to exist?

9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
supposed to be a religion of love, or does it instead show the
consequences of abandoning reason for faith?

10) If everything is the product of a "grand design" by an
omniscient, benevolent designer, why is the history of life so
filled with horrible suffering, blundering waste, and miserable
failures? Why does this god go through billions of years of such
carnage without yet arriving at his goal?

11) Why did your god intervene so many times in human affairs
during
antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do a single thing
during modern times?

12) Why should one's inner convictions about the existence of
god
indicate that such a being exists outside of the believer's own
mind? In other words, if we can rely on subjective "intuitions"
about god, why can't we rely on subjective intuitions about
ghosts,
devils, witches, and other supernatural agents?

13) If you claim that the Resurrection (accompanied by two major
earthquakes and zombies arising from their graves, according
the
gospel of Matthew, an eclipse according to Luke) they why are
there
no extra-biblical records of these events?

14) If you claim that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of
these
events, then why do they disagree so widely over what
happened?

15) Can a god who would abandon his children when they
needed him
the most (as during the Holocaust of the Second World War) still
be
considered "all-good"?

16) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?

17) If the god of the Bible is "all-good," why does he himself say
that he created evil (Isaiah 45: 7)?

18) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and
truth?

19) If you would answer #16 with "faith," then why are there so
many
contradictory faiths in the world?

20) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?

21) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

22) If no rational argument can convince you that you are wrong,
then why should anyone with a different point of view see your
faith
as anything other than a cult?

23) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
compassionate god care whether or not we believe in him?

24) Why is faith (belief without evidence) considered a virtue?

25) How is faith without evidence any different from gullibility?

26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over
reason be
trusted?

27) Why do so many religious people thank god when they
survive a
disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in
the first place?

28) If you insist that the atheist disprove the god of the Bible,
are you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ran
and
all the other ancient gods and goddesses?

29) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionately
smaller than their numbers in the general population?

30) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty god as depicted in the
Old Testament still a loving god? Or is the Old Testament (which
Jesus was supposed to uphold "every jot and tittle") wrong?

31) How can the same god that, according to the Old Testament,
killed everybody on Earth except for four people (Noah's Flood)
be
considered as anything other than evil?

32) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and
miracles
consistent with our understanding of good mental health?

33) In order to be good Christians, must we really do as Jesus
says
in Luke 14: 26 and hate ourselves and our families?

34) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead
to "save" humanity, why should the Jesus story be considered
true
while the others are regarded as false?

35) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not
forbid slavery and war crimes, such as those committed by the
Hebrews?

36) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
many factual errors and contradictions, such as the two
contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis?

37) Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way which
leaves no doubt about what it means? In other words, why are
there
so many Christian sects?

38) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in
the Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from
Christian fundamentalists today?

39) Has anyone ever been killed in the name of atheism?

40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist
religion
has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
followed?

--- End forwarded message ---

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard
<anotherpaul2001@y...> wrote:
> You have posted thsi list on several sites. You have been asked to
pick one and discuss it, but you don't.Why?


Feel free to answer 1 up to 40. Any question you and others like to
answer.  I posted these questions on other sites.  I want to see
answers and which religion (catholic, protestant, jw and others)  can
answer best.


Jeep




>
> jeep_dj5 <jeep_dj5@y...> wrote:
> Some Questions For The Believer
>
>
> 1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
> a
> thing exists?
>
> 2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
>
> 3) How can something that cannot be described be said to
> exist?
>
> 4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming
> to the "one true religion," why do you think your beliefs are the
> correct ones?
>
> 5) Since these religions make opposing claims, can more than
> one of
> them be right?
>
> 6) If you feel "in your heart" that your religion is the right one,
> how do you answer those of other faiths who claim the same
> thing?
>
> 7) How is it possible to settle the debate as to which of these
> religions, if any, is correct?
>
> 8) Why does your god allow all these false religions to exist?
>
> 9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
> supposed to be a religion of love, or does it instead show the
> consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
>
> 10) If everything is the product of a "grand design" by an
> omniscient, benevolent designer, why is the history of life so
> filled with horrible suffering, blundering waste, and miserable
> failures? Why does this god go through billions of years of such
> carnage without yet arriving at his goal?
>
> 11) Why did your god intervene so many times in human affairs
> during
> antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do a single thing
> during modern times?
>
> 12) Why should one's inner convictions about the existence of
> god
> indicate that such a being exists outside of the believer's own
> mind? In other words, if we can rely on subjective "intuitions"
> about god, why can't we rely on subjective intuitions about
> ghosts,
> devils, witches, and other supernatural agents?
>
> 13) If you claim that the Resurrection (accompanied by two major
> earthquakes and zombies arising from their graves, according
> the
> gospel of Matthew, an eclipse according to Luke) they why are
> there
> no extra-biblical records of these events?
>
> 14) If you claim that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of
> these
> events, then why do they disagree so widely over what
> happened?
>
> 15) Can a god who would abandon his children when they
> needed him
> the most (as during the Holocaust of the Second World War) still
> be
> considered "all-good"?
>
> 16) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
>
> 17) If the god of the Bible is "all-good," why does he himself say
> that he created evil (Isaiah 45: 7)?
>
> 18) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and
> truth?
>
> 19) If you would answer #16 with "faith," then why are there so
> many
> contradictory faiths in the world?
>
> 20) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
>
> 21) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
>
> 22) If no rational argument can convince you that you are wrong,
> then why should anyone with a different point of view see your
> faith
> as anything other than a cult?
>
> 23) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
> compassionate god care whether or not we believe in him?
>
> 24) Why is faith (belief without evidence) considered a virtue?
>
> 25) How is faith without evidence any different from gullibility?
>
> 26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over
> reason be
> trusted?
>
> 27) Why do so many religious people thank god when they
> survive a
> disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in
> the first place?
>
> 28) If you insist that the atheist disprove the god of the Bible,
> are you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ran
> and
> all the other ancient gods and goddesses?
>
> 29) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionately
> smaller than their numbers in the general population?
>
> 30) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty god as depicted in the
> Old Testament still a loving god? Or is the Old Testament (which
> Jesus was supposed to uphold "every jot and tittle") wrong?
>
> 31) How can the same god that, according to the Old Testament,
> killed everybody on Earth except for four people (Noah's Flood)
> be
> considered as anything other than evil?
>
> 32) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and
> miracles
> consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
>
> 33) In order to be good Christians, must we really do as Jesus
> says
> in Luke 14: 26 and hate ourselves and our families?
>
> 34) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
> Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead
> to "save" humanity, why should the Jesus story be considered
> true
> while the others are regarded as false?
>
> 35) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not
> forbid slavery and war crimes, such as those committed by the
> Hebrews?
>
> 36) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so
> many factual errors and contradictions, such as the two
> contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis?
>
> 37) Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way which
> leaves no doubt about what it means? In other words, why are
> there
> so many Christian sects?
>
> 38) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in
> the Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from
> Christian fundamentalists today?
>
> 39) Has anyone ever been killed in the name of atheism?
>
> 40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist
> religion
> has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
> followed?
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "biblicalapologetics" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "jeep_dj5" <jeep_dj5@y...>
wrote:
> --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard
> <anotherpaul2001@y...> wrote:
> > You have posted thsi list on several sites. You have been asked to
> pick one and discuss it, but you don't.Why?


This is you and others of various faiths' chance to showcase your
religion's theological/doctrine supremacy.


Jeep




>
>
> >
> > jeep_dj5 <jeep_dj5@y...> wrote:
> > Some Questions For The Believer
> >
> >
> > 1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
> > a
> > thing exists?
> >
> > 2) If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?
> >
> > 3) How can something that cannot be described be said to
> > exist?
> >
> > 4) Since there are countless religions in the world today claiming
> > to the "one true religion," why do you think your beliefs are the
> > correct ones?
> >
> > 5) Since these religions make opposing claims, can more than
> > one of
> > them be right?
> >
> > 6) If you feel "in your heart" that your religion is the right
one,
> > how do you answer those of other faiths who claim the same
> > thing?
> >
> > 7) How is it possible to settle the debate as to which of these
> > religions, if any, is correct?
> >
> > 8) Why does your god allow all these false religions to exist?
> >
> > 9) Is the bloody history of Christianity consistent with what is
> > supposed to be a religion of love, or does it instead show the
> > consequences of abandoning reason for faith?
> >
> > 10) If everything is the product of a "grand design" by an
> > omniscient, benevolent designer, why is the history of life so
> > filled with horrible suffering, blundering waste, and miserable
> > failures? Why does this god go through billions of years of such
> > carnage without yet arriving at his goal?
> >
> > 11) Why did your god intervene so many times in human affairs
> > during
> > antiquity (according to the Bible) and yet not do a single thing
> > during modern times?
> >
> > 12) Why should one's inner convictions about the existence of
> > god
> > indicate that such a being exists outside of the believer's own
> > mind? In other words, if we can rely on subjective "intuitions"
> > about god, why can't we rely on subjective intuitions about
> > ghosts,
> > devils, witches, and other supernatural agents?
> >
> > 13) If you claim that the Resurrection (accompanied by two major
> > earthquakes and zombies arising from their graves, according
> > the
> > gospel of Matthew, an eclipse according to Luke) they why are
> > there
> > no extra-biblical records of these events?
> >
> > 14) If you claim that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of
> > these
> > events, then why do they disagree so widely over what
> > happened?
> >
> > 15) Can a god who would abandon his children when they
> > needed him
> > the most (as during the Holocaust of the Second World War) still
> > be
> > considered "all-good"?
> >
> > 16) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
> >
> > 17) If the god of the Bible is "all-good," why does he himself say
> > that he created evil (Isaiah 45: 7)?
> >
> > 18) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and
> > truth?
> >
> > 19) If you would answer #16 with "faith," then why are there so
> > many
> > contradictory faiths in the world?
> >
> > 20) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
> >
> > 21) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
> >
> > 22) If no rational argument can convince you that you are wrong,
> > then why should anyone with a different point of view see your
> > faith
> > as anything other than a cult?
> >
> > 23) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving,
> > compassionate god care whether or not we believe in him?
> >
> > 24) Why is faith (belief without evidence) considered a virtue?
> >
> > 25) How is faith without evidence any different from gullibility?
> >
> > 26) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over
> > reason be
> > trusted?
> >
> > 27) Why do so many religious people thank god when they
> > survive a
> > disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster
in
> > the first place?
> >
> > 28) If you insist that the atheist disprove the god of the Bible,
> > are you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ran
> > and
> > all the other ancient gods and goddesses?
> >
> > 29) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionately
> > smaller than their numbers in the general population?
> >
> > 30) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty god as depicted in
the
> > Old Testament still a loving god? Or is the Old Testament (which
> > Jesus was supposed to uphold "every jot and tittle") wrong?
> >
> > 31) How can the same god that, according to the Old Testament,
> > killed everybody on Earth except for four people (Noah's Flood)
> > be
> > considered as anything other than evil?
> >
> > 32) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and
> > miracles
> > consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
> >
> > 33) In order to be good Christians, must we really do as Jesus
> > says
> > in Luke 14: 26 and hate ourselves and our families?
> >
> > 34) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected
> > Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead
> > to "save" humanity, why should the Jesus story be considered
> > true
> > while the others are regarded as false?
> >
> > 35) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not
> > forbid slavery and war crimes, such as those committed by the
> > Hebrews?
> >
> > 36) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain
so
> > many factual errors and contradictions, such as the two
> > contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis?
> >
> > 37) Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way which
> > leaves no doubt about what it means? In other words, why are
> > there
> > so many Christian sects?
> >
> > 38) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted
in
> > the Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from
> > Christian fundamentalists today?
> >
> > 39) Has anyone ever been killed in the name of atheism?
> >
> > 40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist
> > religion
> > has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
> > followed?
> >
> > --- End forwarded message ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >     Visit your group "biblicalapologetics" on the web.
> >
> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > --------------------

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, jeep_dj5 wrote:

> Feel free to answer 1 up to 40. Any question you and others like to
> answer.  I posted these questions on other sites.  I want to see
> answers and which religion (catholic, protestant, jw and others)  can
> answer best.
...
> This is you and others of various faiths' chance to showcase your
> religion's theological/doctrine supremacy.

Didn't the host/owner of this mailing list already address these
objections years ago?

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/worldview_apologeti\
cs/bowman-responsetoau.html

Just an observation...

---
Michael Hamblin                michaelh@...
7815 McCallum Blvd Apt 17201   http://www.michaelh.com/
Dallas, TX  75252-6801         Home Phone: 972-733-3357

I am not going to answer all these questions; it is simply not curtious to
bombard lists with so many questions. It falls along the lines of, "Have you
beaten your wife lately?"  However, I will address one question:

>18) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?

My answer is yes, but before I explain that further, I have two questions
for you.

1) Is begging the question rational?

2) How do you justify using reason as a means to knowledge and truth?  With
reason?



~ J. Sloan


Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

• Visit your group "biblicalapologetics <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblicalapologetics> " on the web.
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  

--- Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...> wrote:

> I am not going to answer all these questions; it is
> simply not curtious to
> bombard lists with so many questions. It falls along
> the lines of, "Have you
> beaten your wife lately?"  However, I will address
> one question:
>
> >18) Is there a better way than reason to acquire
> knowledge and truth?
>
> My answer is yes, but before I explain that further,
> I have two questions
> for you.

They are irrelevant.  You are trying to answer a
trap-question.  What do you think you are going to do?
  Give a "reason" why "reasoning" is not enough?

Ain't it kinda funny that reasoning is enough to prove
that it ain't enough?

> 1) Is begging the question rational?

No, it's a logical fallacy.  Whether someone CARES
whether they are begging the question, is what
determines whether or not they are being irrational.

> 2) How do you justify using reason as a means to
> knowledge and truth?  With
> reason?

Because the only alternative to "reason" is "not
reason" (i.e., there is no such thing as "non-reason"
unless it is equated with "not reason" or
"unreason(able)".

So since the alternative has a rather consistent
history of being the perfect way to screw up your life
and make others miserable, there doesn't seem to be a
great need to defend such an axiom.

Let's get that down clearly now...

That which is "other" than reason, must logically be
"non-reason".

That which is "non-reason" is synonymous with "not
reason".

And that which is NOT reason, is UNreason.

Now, do you have an additional way of arriving at
truth which will get you to the truth, but which
method cannot be called "reason"?

you better hope not.  Unless you just LIKE to defend
unreasonable positions.

But I understand your position.  If you DON'T answer
that first question with typical Christian semantic
gymnastics, you will be forced to agree that "reason"
is all that is needed, a very unbiblical anti-Pauline
position.

So to defend the irrational biblical view, you are
forced to come up with a phantom category between the
two opposing ways of collecting truth; reason and
non-reason.

Please do your absolute best to show that there is at
least ONE way that something which is non-reason,
could still be rational/logical.  Give it yer best shot.



____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Responding to "jeep_dj5", who posted the following to the biblical
apologetics mailing list:

> Some Questions For The Believer
>
>
> 1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
> a thing exists?

[... deletion ...]

> 40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist religion
> has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
> followed?

    I have no idea how old you are or how much experience you have had
with mailing lists, but I have had much experience with email lists
for many years. I have managed two or three myself.

    I think cutting-and-pasting has its place, but often it comes
across as impersonal and careless, even if the item posted has some
bearing on the mailing list subject.  No doubt, questions about
theism or fundamentalism are germane to this mailing list.

    However, a cut-and-paste question shows no more sensitivity or
personal investment than a cut-and-paste reply. Personally, I *like*
to answer questions, provided that they come from real people. It
gives me a sense of accomplishing something or meeting a real human
need. But I dislike posers and hypocrites, who ask questions they
don't really care about or who take 2 minutes to cut-and-paste and
then expect others to take 20 minutes or 60 minutes to think out a
reply. To me, that's just unfair and unkind.

    If you exhibit ten minutes of real thinking and human interaction,
you'll get a much more serious response from people like me. I'll
start off by giving you my real name. Thanks for listening.

--
Eric Pement - eric.pement@...