Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:45:26 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net%ihatespam%
|
Viewed:
|
1068 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > And now... I have you and the rest of the christians right where I want
> > you.... Observe. (I love it when a plan comes together)
Thank you, Hannibal.
> Oh, don't flatter yourself....like it wasn't obvious! While I found your
> tale extremely humorous - (which is bad because I just got out of the ICU
> due to amonia (pneumonia), my ribs are killing me!! I laughed my @$$ off -
> that's right, I now have no @$$!!) it is still fundamentally flawed. You
> consistently harangue about no proof or reliable evidence - which is totally
> false. First, you act as if witness testimony is totally unreliable - which
> is ridiculous, that would stand our whole justice system on end. Yadda yadda
> about other types of evidence being preferrable - of course they are, but
> that does NOT detract from witness testimony. In YOUR story you admit having
> to get witnesses to get their stories straight, yet in the gospel record the
> testimony of people who did NOT accept Christianity equally supports it's
> claims as those who did. There are Roman documents, secular historian's
> writings, Temple documents as well as hundreds of reliable, credible witness
> testimonials. Better men than you have sought to discredit Christianity and
> have become believers in the face of such evidence. Josh McDowell of course.
> His books are full of such evidence. Which, by the way, is the same kind of
> evidence that supports the life or actions of any historical event or
> person. It is said that there is more evidence for the life of Christ than
> of George Washington, yet I don't see you doubting the claims that he was
> the first president - a fact you CANNOT prove without such evidence about
> which I could make equally as foolish arguments as you do. Also, I doubt
> that you would be willing to give your life for the story you told. If they
> knew it was contrived then why did they die in poverty defending it, they
> had no reputation to uphold, they were scum to most. There is much critical
> evidence about the miracles of Christ and the prophecies - some of which
> were stated thousands of years before coming to pass, and not rationally
> predictable as the cute little examples you cite. There is no comparison.
> Your story was well thought out, impeccably implemented, hugely hilarious
> yet woefully inadequate.
You raise good points, Bill, but don't fall into the trap of trying to prove
anything about Christ or God, at least to seasoned debaters such as Lar et al.
They will eat you for lunch. But that's okay, because we don't need proof in
order to have *faith* (the assurance of things unknown).
Of course, it cuts both ways. Neither can Lar provide any evidence to the
contrary that God doesn't exist. But then he will blather on about the burden of
proof being incumbent upon us blah blah squirm blah.
> When are you going to admit where this visceral disdain for "your"
> perception of God comes from? - a perception which is terribly askew. Was it
> mom? Dad? Gramma? I don't think it's your own - I think you are a
> reactionary. That this is nothing original to your intellect but merely a
> base emotional aversion to some religiously overbearing figure out of your
> past - something I have intimated several times and which you always side step.
Here is where I think the "intellectuals" stumble: Say for argument's sake that
there actually is a God who created us all. This God is unseen because it is
infinite and cannot be comprehended by finite beings. Now, how could an
intellectual or a scientist ever hope to believe this God exists? Because they
can only know to be true what they can prove. God by definition is unprovable,
but scientists insist upon applying the scientific method to everything. Their
own intellect becomes their stumbling block. To intellectuals and scientists:
face it, in the big scheme of things, you don't know kaka from kuchen (not that
anyone else does, but we don't really think we do either).
-John
>
>
> I *told* you in my mea culpa that I would still do this. BECAUSE I LIKE IT!
>
> Bill
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
