Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Moses Supports Child Molestation

Expand Messages
  • Louise
    This is pretty sick Dave. I m removing this post. Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with you can do so in private email. Louise Dave Wave
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This is pretty sick Dave.  I'm removing this post.  Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with you can do so in private email.
       
      Louise

      Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
      .



      Do you Yahoo!?
      Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

    • Robert Nusom
      Louise, I know I haven t posted much, if anything, to this group, so you don t know me from a hole in the wall. However, I have been working on a response to
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,

        I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
        group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
        However, I have been working on a response to this
        thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
        Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
        correspondence). Since the subject matter concerns
        the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a bit,
        also because I think it might open an interesting
        serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I think
        you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.

        Sincerely,

        Bob
        --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

        > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
        > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with
        > you can do so in private email.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
        > Recent Activity
        >
        > 1
        > New Members
        >
        > Visit Your Group
        > Yahoo! Avatars
        > Share Your Style
        > Show your face in
        > Messenger & more.
        >
        > Y! GeoCities
        > Share Your Resume
        > Show off your
        > talent and skills.
        >
        > Y! Toolbar
        > Groups in 1 Click
        > Add Groups to
        > Yahoo! Toolbar.
        >
        >
        >
        > .
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
        Mail.


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Louise
        Robert, I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave s subject line that Moses supported child molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list. If you
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Robert,
           
          I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave's subject line that Moses supported child molestation.  It was so inapproriate for this list.  If you would like to continue the discussion, then I suggest that you rename the subject line to something that doesn't sound so blatantly inappropriate. 
           
          If you think a good discussion will result from the subject manner and you present it in an appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me. 
           
          Louise

          Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:

          Louise,

          I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
          group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
          However, I have been working on a response to this
          thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
          Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
          correspondence) . Since the subject matter concerns
          the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a bit,
          also because I think it might open an interesting
          serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I think
          you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.

          Sincerely,

          Bob
          --- Louise <mclouus@yahoo. com> wrote:

          > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
          > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with
          > you can do so in private email.
          >
          > Louise
          >
          > Dave Wave <empiricism101@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          > Recent Activity
          >
          > 1
          > New Members
          >
          > Visit Your Group
          > Yahoo! Avatars
          > Share Your Style
          > Show your face in
          > Messenger & more.
          >
          > Y! GeoCities
          > Share Your Resume
          > Show off your
          > talent and skills.
          >
          > Y! Toolbar
          > Groups in 1 Click
          > Add Groups to
          > Yahoo! Toolbar.
          >
          >
          >
          > .
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------ --------- --------- ---
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
          Mail.

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


          Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

        • Robert Nusom
          Louise, So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the term as those of us who believe in God in some fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Louise,

            So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the
            term as those of us who believe in God in some
            fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
            scripture only in the sense that they presume certain
            preconditions regarding God. To the atheistic world
            those preconditions do not exist. Frequently, those
            who choose not to believe in God do so simply as a
            means to shock and discredit those "fools" who lack
            the intellect or ability to see the "realities" of a
            happenstance world. In the case of Dave, his goal is
            not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
            debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
            preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God of
            Abraham, hold most dearly.

            There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
            first is to get angry at them and offer them no pulpit
            from which to voice their poison. The second is to
            let them run on with the venom until they expose
            themselves for what they are, all the while giving
            them every consideration and benefit of the doubt. In
            my experience the former reaction is the one they most
            like, since it allows them to walk away from the
            engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
            and if you challenge the fantasy, they become enraged,
            these God fearers suffer from a form of schizophrenia.

            Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their lack
            of faith in God, and they do not challenge
            God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
            tenuous than our own. People like Dave want to prove
            that they are right, so they get "in your face". This
            need to prove they are right is a certain and obvious
            sign that they have doubts. My correspondence on the
            issue at hand will center on those doubts.

            It is at worst, a lot of fun. At best, it well might
            make a dent in Dave's psyche that one day might make
            him look at God in a different way.

            I was once a Dave. I am not anymore because someone
            took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
            them for what they were. I am not a Christian, but
            the efforts of that person turned me around until I
            came to love God as a Noahide.

            Sincerely,

            Bob



            --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

            > Robert,
            >
            > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
            > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
            > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
            > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
            > suggest that you rename the subject line to
            > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
            > inappropriate.
            >
            > If you think a good discussion will result from
            > the subject manner and you present it in an
            > appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me.
            >
            > Louise
            >
            > Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
            >
            > Louise,
            >
            > I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
            > group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
            >
            > However, I have been working on a response to this
            > thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
            > Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
            > correspondence). Since the subject matter concerns
            > the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a
            > bit,
            > also because I think it might open an interesting
            > serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I
            > think
            > you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            >
            > Bob
            > --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:
            >
            > > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
            > > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it
            > with
            > > you can do so in private email.
            > >
            > > Louise
            > >
            > > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
            > > Recent Activity
            > >
            > > 1
            > > New Members
            > >
            > > Visit Your Group
            > > Yahoo! Avatars
            > > Share Your Style
            > > Show your face in
            > > Messenger & more.
            > >
            > > Y! GeoCities
            > > Share Your Resume
            > > Show off your
            > > talent and skills.
            > >
            > > Y! Toolbar
            > > Groups in 1 Click
            > > Add Groups to
            > > Yahoo! Toolbar.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > .
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
            > Mail.
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
            > protection around
            > http://mail.yahoo.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make
            > PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Dave Wave
            ... I understand if you use the inappropriateness argument. But as far as I can tell, I supported my interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

              > Robert,
              >
              > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
              > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
              > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
              > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
              > suggest that you rename the subject line to
              > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
              > inappropriate.

              I understand if you use the "inappropriateness"
              argument.

              But as far as I can tell, I supported my
              interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
              to remove any posts whatsoever, but when you delete
              posts that are bible-based, because they are
              "inappropriate", it tells me that us skeptics have
              some really hot arguments, so hot that even some
              apologetics forums on the internet (the places you'd
              most likely get an answer from) will not dare touch
              the stuff.

              "keep the little girls alive for yourselves..."

              Not exactly how you greet each other in Sunday School,
              is it?


              --- Dave

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Dave Wave
              ... Psalm 14, the fool has said in his heart, there is no god . They are all corrupt... Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter s goal is not truly understanding, but
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
                > In the case of Dave, his goal
                > is
                > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
                > of
                > Abraham, hold most dearly.

                Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                no god'. They are all corrupt..."

                Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
                understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
                underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                dearly.

                > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                > pulpit
                > from which to voice their poison.

                "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

                > The second is to
                > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                > In
                > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                > most
                > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                > enraged,
                > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                > schizophrenia."

                Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

                If I thought my belief system could not stand
                scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                after the first or second admonition.

                Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

                > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                > lack
                > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                > tenuous than our own.

                On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                the something.

                Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

                Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
                the burden of proof.

                If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
                UNBELIEF would be the default position.

                It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                belief.

                > People like Dave want to
                > prove
                > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

                That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                they disagreed with.

                > This
                > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                > obvious
                > sign that they have doubts.

                So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
                he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                in Acts:

                "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
                speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

                Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                harboring all that doubt, eh?

                > I was once a Dave.

                I was once a Robert.

                > I am not anymore because someone
                > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                > them for what they were.

                I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

                --- Dave

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Robert Nusom
                Dave, Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay format when I discuss and debate. The cut and paste approach, setting out each line and then issuing
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dave,

                  Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay
                  format when I discuss and debate. The "cut and paste"
                  approach, setting out each line and then issuing a
                  scathing rebuttal is a bit amateurish to my mind. The
                  effect of it is to make anything someone says look
                  foolish. In that way, it is disrespectful and I will
                  not do it to you. However, you are free to discourse
                  however you feel most comfortable.

                  Before getting into your thoughts, I should again
                  clarify that I am not a Christian and do not believe
                  in the body of books called the "New Testament" or the
                  "Apocrypha". I also do not believe in the various
                  Talmuds or the Kabal. My faith is entirely derived
                  from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thusly, your comments
                  regarding Paul, the Christian Scriptures and even
                  Jesus are not something I am competent to discuss, I
                  will leave that to Christians who are far more
                  knowledgeable on such things. Frankly, I cannot
                  disagree with your assessment of Paul, but that is a
                  discussion for another time.

                  However, your quotation of the fourteenth Psalm is
                  very interesting. I should point out (and I assume
                  that you already know) that the term "fool" as used
                  here is more closely identified as being someone who
                  is morally deficient. The term is not used in the
                  same context as the modern idea of a "fool" who is
                  someone rather considered intellectually deficient or
                  very gullible. The term fool is used, as near as I
                  can guess, in its context as a lack of wisdom, meaning
                  a lack of Godly wisdom, which is also fodder for a
                  whole different discussion. The term is used to say
                  that atheists are morally evil and is completely
                  appropriate in that context. Given that the best
                  definition that I can give for Godly morality is
                  obedience to and love of God, an atheist is ipso facto
                  incapable of being moral. That isn't to say that
                  atheists have no values or even virtues. It does not
                  mean that Atheists cannot be "nice" people. It simply
                  means that Atheists are in a state of rebellion to
                  God, which means they are not obedient to his will and
                  therefore cannot, by Godly definition, be moral.

                  I guess I don't see how a simple truth that says that
                  someone who doesn't believe in God cannot be a part of
                  the morality of God is "degrading and debasing the
                  underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                  choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                  dearly." If you truly are an Atheist, you should wear
                  the monikor like a badge of honor. It attests to the
                  reality that you have not been taken in by this
                  non-existent God and those fatuous people who have
                  fallen for the whole hoax. You are not one of his
                  people, and thus are not bound by his sense of
                  morality or his expectations. Thus, you are
                  absolutely devoid of Godly Morality and, in this
                  context, a fool. Of course, to your mind, those of us
                  who have been "taken in" by this non-existent God are
                  fools in the more modern sense of the term, people who
                  are gullible and lack the intelligence to see through
                  the whole charade.

                  As for the rest of your response, the majority regards
                  Christian Scriptures and Christian Dogma, for which I
                  am absolutely unqualified to offer answer.

                  Then you move on to the question of a burden of proof.
                  This is an argument I will shrink from. The question
                  of a burden of proof is defined by the court system in
                  which evidence is presented, I am not on trial and
                  neither are you. The only trial we must concern
                  ourselves with is the one that will be held before
                  God, and that is one for which you have no concern.
                  Or do you? I cannot prove there is a God and you
                  cannot prove there is not one. It is a debate that
                  goes back to the beginnings of recorded history and
                  probably well beyond. We will not settle it here. Of
                  course, you believe the debate is over and the
                  Atheists have won. I, of course, would point to the
                  fact that the overwhelming majority of people continue
                  to believe in God (or at least, some supernatural
                  entity or perception) and the debate can continue
                  ad-nauseum.

                  I have responded to your Moses post in the other
                  forum, where the wording regarding Moses being a
                  pedophile (May it never be) was not banned. If the
                  people in this group would like to see it, I will post
                  it here as well, but I will not change the name of the
                  thread, shameful as it may be. Such are my views of
                  free speach.

                  In the love of God,

                  Bob

                  --- Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:

                  > --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
                  > > In the case of Dave, his goal
                  > > is
                  > > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                  > > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                  > > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the
                  > God
                  > > of
                  > > Abraham, hold most dearly.
                  >
                  > Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                  > no god'. They are all corrupt..."
                  >
                  > Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
                  > understanding, but that of degrading and debasing
                  > the
                  > underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we,
                  > who
                  > choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold
                  > most
                  > dearly.
                  >
                  > > There are two ways of dealing with such people.
                  > The
                  > > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                  > > pulpit
                  > > from which to voice their poison.
                  >
                  > "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                  > admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)
                  >
                  > > The second is to
                  > > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                  > > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                  > > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                  >
                  > > In
                  > > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                  > > most
                  > > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                  > > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy
                  > world
                  > > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                  > > enraged,
                  > > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                  > > schizophrenia."
                  >
                  > Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                  > still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.
                  >
                  > If I thought my belief system could not stand
                  > scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                  > everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                  > after the first or second admonition.
                  >
                  > Paul knew what was good for business and what
                  > wasn't.
                  >
                  > > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                  > > lack
                  > > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                  > > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                  > > tenuous than our own.
                  >
                  > On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                  > the something.
                  >
                  > Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.
                  >
                  > Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who
                  > has
                  > the burden of proof.
                  >
                  > If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                  > jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                  > obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So
                  > your
                  > UNBELIEF would be the default position.
                  >
                  > It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                  > is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my
                  > heart.
                  > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                  > My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position,
                  > unless
                  > and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                  > belief.
                  >
                  > > People like Dave want to
                  > > prove
                  > > that they are right, so they get "in your face".
                  >
                  > That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                  > more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                  > they disagreed with.
                  >
                  > > This
                  > > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                  > > obvious
                  > > sign that they have doubts.
                  >
                  > So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity
                  > after
                  > he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                  > in Acts:
                  >
                  > "But when some were becoming hardened and
                  > disobedient,
                  > speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                  > withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                  > reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                  > took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                  > Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                  > Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)
                  >
                  > Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                  > Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                  > harboring all that doubt, eh?
                  >
                  > > I was once a Dave.
                  >
                  > I was once a Robert.
                  >
                  > > I am not anymore because someone
                  > > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and
                  > recognized
                  > > them for what they were.
                  >
                  > I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                  > attacks seriously and recognized them for what they
                  > were.
                  >
                  > --- Dave
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                  > protection around
                  > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Ramon
                  Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."  You are a black hole, sucking up all the energy within your reach.  You don't think Titus 3:9 is wise?  Of course you do, but only after giving yourself  way too much credit, all unwarranted.   
                     
                    And the psalmist?  Simply speaking the truth as the Creator knows it, and desires to communicate that to us. Very basic really.  But you are so obviously defensive your take on it is amazing.  I have seen these arguments refuted before but you just either ignore them, act unfazed, whatever. 
                     
                    Burden of proof?  Please.  Who's been telling you Jesus is knocking at your heart?  Then talk to that person. You stick to your faith and I will stick to mine.  At least I know I have faith.  A very good thing, because it is a primary requirement for a believer.  BELIEVER.
                     
                    Now you're going to suck up more energy from whomever wants to engage you, whether in love or in vanity, but this is all you're gonna get from me.  But don't worry, in my book, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am not condemning you in any way.  After all there is only one unforgivable sin, and you are very obviously not capable of committing that sin, so you're pretty safe in terms of eternal damnation.  But you will still be paying this all back.  And you know what they say about paybacks...
                     
                    Ramon
                     
                     
                    Ephesians 5:11
                    And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.


                    Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
                    --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                    > In the case of Dave, his goal
                    > is
                    > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                    > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                    > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
                    > of
                    > Abraham, hold most dearly.

                    Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                    no god'. They are all corrupt..."

                    Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter' s goal is not truly
                    understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
                    underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                    choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                    dearly.

                    > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                    > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                    > pulpit
                    > from which to voice their poison.

                    "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                    admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

                    > The second is to
                    > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                    > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                    > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                    > In
                    > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                    > most
                    > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                    > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                    > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                    > enraged,
                    > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                    > schizophrenia. "

                    Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                    still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

                    If I thought my belief system could not stand
                    scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                    everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                    after the first or second admonition.

                    Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

                    > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                    > lack
                    > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                    > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                    > tenuous than our own.

                    On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                    the something.

                    Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

                    Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
                    the burden of proof.

                    If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                    jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                    obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
                    UNBELIEF would be the default position.

                    It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                    is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                    Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                    My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                    and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                    belief.

                    > People like Dave want to
                    > prove
                    > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

                    That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                    more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                    they disagreed with.

                    > This
                    > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                    > obvious
                    > sign that they have doubts.

                    So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
                    he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                    in Acts:

                    "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
                    speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                    withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                    reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                    took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                    Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                    Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

                    Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                    Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                    harboring all that doubt, eh?

                    > I was once a Dave.

                    I was once a Robert.

                    > I am not anymore because someone
                    > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                    > them for what they were.

                    I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                    attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

                    --- Dave

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



                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

                  • Jimmy Sloan
                    Dave, With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave,

                      With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule
                      (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                      proposition incur a burden of proof and those that deny a proposition don't
                      incur the burden of proof?

                      You stated that if you claimed that there were a purple people-eater jumping
                      around on my leaft ear, that I would be under no obligation to prove this
                      statement wrong. I am inclined to agree, but not because there is any rule
                      of logic that states this. I would agree only because your proposition is
                      not something that people would be inclined to agree with for very good
                      reasons: We don't have experiential justifications that would lead us to
                      believe in purple people-eaters and even if we did, such a belief would not
                      change our lives in areas of knowledge, morality, our eternal destiny and so
                      on. Plus, it is obvious that your proposition is ad-hoc, so when you move
                      from burden of proof claims in purple people-eaters to that of God, I
                      believe that your move is unwarranted. You said:


                      "It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there is a man named Jesus
                      knocking at the door of my heart. Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not
                      a chance. My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless and until
                      evidence comes in to substantiate your belief."

                      You went from purple people-eaters to Christianity and claimed that it is
                      the same. How is it the same (other than your say so)? It seems to me that
                      you are comparing apples and oranges. Unbelief in purple people-eaters may
                      be one thing but just because we are warranted in our unbelief of such
                      entities, it doesn't follow that there is a warranted universal unbelief in
                      all existential entities and that atheism is a default position. What if I
                      don't believe that existence is real, can you prove that existence is real
                      (as opposed to an allusion)? And, if you can't (and I can assure you that
                      you can't), am I justified in my lack of belief until you provide evidence
                      to substantiate your claims that existence is real? Burden of proof claims
                      are always viewed from within a context; there are no rules of logic that
                      state that unbelief is a default position of some kind. If you think there
                      are, then prove that I have to prove that God exists.

                      I know I could argue quite successfully that -- if anything -- agnosticism
                      is the default position, but I think I can do more than that and argue that
                      theism is the default position. There are no atheistic societies and from
                      our earliest history, man has always held to some type of belief in higher
                      powers. Atheists have always been a minority and without appealing to pure
                      numbers, it seems that such a near universal belief gives warrant to the
                      fact that our belief is justified. Just because some skeptic comes along
                      and says, "I am not happy with that, there is no evidence for God, etc.
                      etc." does not mean that we theists have a burden of proof. Anyone can be a
                      skeptic, that's easy. But until you show me a law of logic or text in a
                      reliable logic textbook, I see no reasons to accept your claim other than
                      just your assertion. An assertion that is, up this point, a baseless
                      assertion without merit.




                      ~ J. Sloan


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





                      >
                      >It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                      >is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                      > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                      >My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                      >and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                      >belief.

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
                      ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.