Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:07:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1124 times
|
| |
|
|
(There's a lot here and it would make sense to split up further replies into
separate threads depending on the topics below - just a thought)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I've set the FUT back where it belongs, this is a serious debate although
> couched in humor.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> So you doubt my word that I was saved?
How do you define "saved"? Don't abuse religious language without providing a
context for your re-definitions.
> You doubt my word that miracles have been worked?
Sure, but ditto above - please define "miracles".
> You doubt that these objective, verifiable events happened?
Not sure what you're referring to, but I certainly wouldn't call them miracles
any more that I would someone who said that the sun will rise next year - I'd
call it luck based on good input
> I can provide verifiable objective proof of every claim I make.
That doesn't make it a miracle. Just educated guesses.
> I DID fund a Brikwars game at a convention (well, I COULD have but don't let
that mess you up).
Sounds like you're stretching things already - typical...
> People ARE making custom kits available. People ARE building 8 wide
> trains. And some sinners are already slidindg into the abyss of MegaBloks
You've mis/re-defined "sinner". But I suppose that's your style (yawn).
> > You have no context for proving anything related to your assertions.
> Certainly I do, the events, as I said, happened. By the way, I forgot to
> mention, The Lehman has been making prophesies, far in advance of them
> happening, which all have been coming true.
Prophecy not equal prediction - which is what he made. You continue in your
redefinition thing again.
> Bulk Brick sales, for example. A new Space line, for example. Losses at TLC
> (and if that isn't Judgment Day, what is?) The historical record clearly shows
> these predictions.
Ah, now admit that they're just predictions, not prophecies - your words belie
your true nature - twisting semantics to suit yourself.
> Just read all of LUGNET to date and you'll find all of them. Either made by
> The Lehman himself or by one of his other believers, or by me. The fact that
> they might be vague predictions and that there might be some contrary
> predictions is not relevant.
Actually pretty relevant, the Bible has a standard for false-prophets - death.
Pretty severe - lucky for you we're not living in ancient Hebrew days, eh?
> > You have no witnesses.
> Certainly I do, and i can produce their written testimony, corroborated by
> other witnesses. Unfortunately, they're all dead but don't you think it
> would be a bit much for me to just manufacture these out of thin air?
Youre attempting hyperbole with the Biblical account. Just because something
occurred before the lifetime of those alive does not invalidate the facts.
There is no document from that period or for far later who's accuracy is better
affirmed than the Bible. There is no person who's verifiable impact on the
world and the facts of his presence in the world is better attested to (from
that time period or before) than Jesus.
> They're authentic because they are old writings. Some of them look like they
> were written well before you were born. And they're authentic because I say
> they are.
You probably don't believe that you Mom gave birth to you unless you'd been
there (and remembered it - which you don't (but I'll wager that you'll claim
that you do remember it))
> > In reality, you have nothing that could be used to prove your statements in a
> > court of law.
> Irrelevant. We're talking about Religion with a capital R here.
No - you are, I'm not.
> You can't require my proof to stand up in court. It doesn't have to be
> objective, factual, or even plausible. It doesn't have to explain anything
> that's not convenient to explain. The Lehman works in mysterious ways and it's
> not for you to question how or when He choses to reveal himself or to whom.
>
> Or are you saying you're prepared to defend christianity and its validity in
> a fair court? Surely you didn't mean THAT! If so I can hardly wait, where
> can I buy tickets?
There's no such thing as a fair court on this earth - I submit the highest
court in our south-eastern most state as fair evidence of that.
> > At a minumum, witnesses are required - and while many belief
> > systems have them - you do not.
>
> Again, I do have them, lots of them, see above... And I'm a personal Witness
> myself. Just ask me! Send me those ladders and I'll tell you *all* about it.
> I bet I could produce 5 or 10 living people who have Witnessed, just give me
> a day or two (feel free to email me if you want in on the fun, I'll tell you
> what to corroborate for me) to whomp them up, er that is, have the truth
> properly reveal itself.
HO Ho!
> > Thus you are on the verge of needing psychological counseling.
>
> Does Lehmanism sound ridiculous? A little nutty? You bet. But we have way
> more fun than christians do. So Lehmanism is a small religion so far. At
> some point christianity had less than 1000 adherents, wouldn't you say?
Actually at one point ther were no adherents, not on earth - a big difference.
My beliefs are centered on the person and work of Christ - God in human form.
Your ridicule still doesn't come close to stating what you really believe.
I think that you're far more pleased with jabbing others than attempting to
state your own beliefs (like Tom S. did). You use humor as a means of avoiding
having to face your own inconsistant beliefs.
> > You are beginning to sound like many of the Jim Jones folks or the Heaven's
> > Gate crowd.
>
> I'd say that if there is anyone in need of a little dose of reality, it's
> you Jon, you're letting my parody get you all worked up!
Now you've gone too far - you _must_ be my brother!
He (and you) wrongly assume that simply because I debate I'm getting
upset/worked up. ha ha ho ho :-)
> You've taken it way too seriously and failed to see that *I* have taken the
> exact same statements that Christians make and *you* have raised some of the
> exact same objections the secularists raised.
Hardly - you're attempting to mock theism. I shine a littel light on your
misconstructions.
> If you still don't get it, this was a parody. It was intended to show, via
> reductio ad absurdium, how non rational christianity's claims sound, and how
> non provable the proofs offered are. You walked right into it and played the
> doubter's role brilliantly. Bravo. Well done! No hard feelings I hope.
Duh - that's preceisely my point above - you're avoiding having to really take
and defend a position of your own.
I've witnessed numerous jabs and barbs by you including some "interesting"
articles you cite, but still you don't state what you believe. Perhaps you have
trouble with that. That really is ok. Attacking is easy, defending is hard.
> I just intended for it to get an initial laugh, but couldn't believe that
> you responded the way you did so I gave it another go.
You misunderstood my incredulity as acceptance and validation. And now thing
that you've won something. (You and my brother should team up)
> Something that's not provable, and can't be shown to have any effect on
> reality except in how it (unprovably, when other causes are available)
> modifies behaviour of people isn't something I am going to sign up for. Now
> or later.
Not true simply because you say it is so. I didn't take that position - even
if you've heard it from others.
> As I've said before, if the Last Trump comes tomorrow, I'll take my chances.
Do you apply the same standard to the rest of your life - hardly.
You research the best sets to purchase.
You drive your vehicle with youre eyes open.
To suggest that you "take your chances" with your life is to trivialize your
actual behavior.
> As I've said before, if your god is any good, I'll do fine on judgement day.
You've put my God into far too small a box.
You've emphasized His goodness and entirely ignored His righteousness. You may
not fare as well as you think.
> And if he isn't, he's not a god worthy of me or of my worship. I'm too nifty.
Wrong again. He is worthy of worship because He is good and righteous. Love
and judgement go hand in hand. Man gets confused when he attempts to emaphsize
one attribute over the other - they both must be equal for God to be worthy of
worship.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
