On Jul 8, 6:44�am, "Steve O" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message

...







"Steve O" wrote in message
...

"rbwinn" wrote in message
....
On Jul 6, 9:42 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:02?am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God. ?Bearing
false
witness about me would fall under the category of willful
disobedience
of God.
In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin.
We have already established by your own definitions that you are a
sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your lack
of
charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to God
on
anyones behalf..)
I think you are in deep trouble, dude.
No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about
atheists.
That one ever get answered? ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I know one atheist who became a Christian.

Ah nice. I was just such a man. I eventually grew out of it though.
:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you were just an atheist working undercover.
If you were going back to atheism, you were never really a believer.
Robert B. Winn

Every single atheist in this newsgroup started out as an atheist. (so did
every Christian too, for that matter)
Some of us converted to Christianity from atheism, then back again.
I have a two year old who is an atheist, he has absolutely no belief in
God whatsoever.

I'm not sure that counts, seeing as he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Monster Under The Bed.

Actually, he's also asantaist, abunnyist, afairyist and amonsterist too.
He's only two years old, Alex, he doesn't even know what those things are
yet, plus, we're very careful about what sort of fairy tales we tell him
anyway.
Besides, kids aren't dumb.
Any parent could see that kids operate on two levels anyway.
On one level, they like the fantasy/monster stories and enjoy being scared
by them, and on another level they are fully aware that it's only make-
believe.
They're not stupid but they enjoy the exciting pretence of it all
The only time it becomes stupid is when they carry that over to adulthood
and start believing that the magic stories are real.



IME, children are naturally credulous.

Naturally trusting, not credulous.
There's a difference .

We pick explanations that fit the available facts. �If our environment acts
as if Santa Claus is real and we have no evidence to doubt that assertion,
we believe.

It all depends on what Mom and Pop tell us, right?
When we're telling them about Jack and the beanstalk, they know we're not
being serious, but still go along with the story.
The problem occurs when we tell them about Jesus walking on water and
raising the dead, and they naturally assume we are being serious about that,
because we always make the distinction either directly or indirectly between
one magic story and the other.
"Now forget about all of those silly magic stories we told you - here's some
REAL magic stories"
The Santa story is simply training wheels for the God story any way.
It amazes me that at my daughters school, she can have science lessons one
minute, where she is taught to examine facts using the scientific method,
and in the next Religious Education lesson straight afterward, she is told
to abandon any critical thinking skills and simply believe.
Why does the education system insist on trying to confuse our children like
that?

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atheists control the education system. If they have problems in the
system they have devised, it is to increase their control over the
general population.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 8, 6:46�am, "Steve O" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message

...



"Smiler" wrote in message
...

Ho! whack

You could vary it a bit, you know.
Think Batman -- Kapow, Thwack, Kersplat, Kaboom, Zonk, Bam, Boff, Zowie,
Sock, Thunk, Biff, Splatt, Klonk ....

Smiler, I appreciate what you are trying to do with Bobby, but when I see
your posts now, I know that I have to scroll down a whole pile of Bobby
drivel to see if you have written a response to him rather than giving him a
whack.
It's putting me off reading your posts and I might miss anything interesting
you have to say.

--
Steve O

That is easy to resolve. Smiler has never said anything interesting.
The ho whack posts are his best ones.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 8, 8:11�am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve O wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...

"Steve O" wrote in message
...

"rbwinn" wrote in message
....

On Jul 6, 9:42 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:02?am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God.
?Bearing false
witness about me would fall under the category of willful
disobedience
of God.
In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin.
We have already established by your own definitions that you
are a
sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your
lack of
charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to
God on
anyones behalf..)
I think you are in deep trouble, dude.
No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about
atheists.
That one ever get answered? ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I know one atheist who became a Christian.

Ah nice. I was just such a man. I eventually grew out of it though.
:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you were just an atheist working undercover.
If you were going back to atheism, you were never really a believer.
Robert B. Winn

Every single atheist in this newsgroup started out as an atheist. (so
did every Christian too, for that matter)
Some of us converted to Christianity from atheism, then back again.
I have a two year old who is an atheist, he has absolutely no belief
in God whatsoever.

I'm not sure that counts, seeing as he believes in Santa Claus, the
Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Monster Under The Bed.

Actually, he's also asantaist, abunnyist, afairyist and amonsterist too..
He's only two years old, Alex, he doesn't even know what those things
are yet, plus, we're very careful about what sort of fairy tales we tell
him anyway.
Besides, kids aren't dumb.
Any parent could see that kids operate on two levels anyway.
On one level, they like the fantasy/monster stories and enjoy being
scared by them, and on another level they are fully aware that it's only
make- believe.
They're not stupid but they enjoy the exciting pretence of it all
The only time it becomes stupid is when they carry that over to
adulthood and start believing that the magic stories are real.

IME, children are naturally credulous.

Naturally trusting, not credulous.
There's a difference .

We pick explanations that fit the available facts. �If our environment
acts as if Santa Claus is real and we have no evidence to doubt that
assertion, we believe.

It all depends on what Mom and Pop tell us, right?
When we're telling them about Jack and the beanstalk, they know we're
not being serious, but still go along with the story.
The problem occurs when we tell them about Jesus walking on water and
raising the dead, and they naturally assume we are being serious about
that, because we always make the distinction either directly or
indirectly between one magic story and the other.
"Now forget about all of those silly magic stories we told you - here's
some REAL magic stories"
The Santa story is simply training wheels for the God story any way.
It amazes me that at my daughters school, she can have science lessons
one minute, where she is taught to examine facts using the scientific
method, and in the next Religious Education lesson straight afterward,
she is told to abandon any critical thinking skills and simply believe.
Why does the education system insist on trying to confuse our children
like that?

No problem, provided she realises there is a sign over the RI classroom
saying 'abandon reason, all ye who enter here'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

She is only going to that class so that you will have something to
complain about.
Robert B. Winn

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:21:30 GMT, Linda Fox
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2:48*pm, Linda Fox wrote:
(snip)

The fact that it could all be prophesied does not mean that God
approved of it. It just meant it was going to take place. The people
in power who wanted Jesus Christ dead were the Sanhedrin, the leaders
of the Jews.

Just answer yes or no: do you believe that how salvation came about
was through the sacrifice of JC by his death on the cross? Then maybe
you can progress from there inot realising your own theology is
_deeply_ flawed.

Linda ff

For the sake of the argument, contemplate that it may have been
necessary for Jesus to be transposed into Hell (another level of the
Multiverse, as posited by Superstring Theory), so he could make some
adjustments there. Also, contemplate that this transposition had to be
accomplished in the awareness frame of mortal humans, so they could
gain a minimal understanding of what was going on.

Of course this could have been accomplished in any of a number of
ways, but what is wrong with the way God chose to do it? Gordon

On Jul 8, 9:37Â*am, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:42 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:55 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 8:35 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:03 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:59 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:19�pm, Enkidu wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:22183802-cf28-4305-af11-
:
You are the one being deliberately obtuse. � The existence of the
tunnel validates many other things said in the Bible about the
Assyrian invasion of Judea.
"The Hobbit" talks of ale, axes, and forests which we know exist. Does that
validate Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, trolls, magic rings, walking trees and Tom
Bombadil?
--
Enkidu AA#2165 �
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public
schools, or health insurance for all?
� � �-Kurt Vonnegut
Why don't you decide for yourself? Â*You were the one who thought of
it.
Why don't you try to defend your assertions? How can we know we can
trust what you say?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It does not matter to me what you trust. Â*You decide what you are
going to trust.
If you can't provide any sensible reason to believe your fanciful
claims, then I guess we're done.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fanciful claims? Â*I said that the Jews dug a tunnel as a conduit for
water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam. Â*Why do you think
that is a fanciful claim?
That is not a fanciful claim. You and I both know that I'm referring to
your supernatural claims. Those would be the ones you're completely
unable to support with any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have not made any claims to atheists except that the Jews dug a
tunnel to be used as a conduit for water, and the Assyrians built a
ramp out of dirt to get over the city wall at Lachish. Â*To an atheist
these might seem like supernatural claims because there were actually
people working to accomplish both of these tasks instead of just
giving orders, criticism, etc., the way atheists do. Â*Since atheists
have been unable to visualize these two events, there is no reason to
proceed on to anything more complex.
Then we're in total agreement. A tunnel was dug a long time ago and it
got mentioned in some ancient writings, providing absolutlely no support
for any supernatural claims.
So why all the posts?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You do not seem to be visualizing it very well. Â*The Assyrians came
into Judea with an army of hundreds of thousands on their way home
after taking a big chunk of Egypt. Â*Judea was a little dot in the
middle of the Assyrian kingdom, which extended from the Caspian Sea to
Egypt. Â*So why was there still a Kingdom of Judea when King
Sennacherib got back to his capitol city of Ninevah? Â* Sennacherib
himself says there was on the column he had erected in Ninevah.
Or so the story goes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What do you mean so the story goes? Â*The column erected by Sennacherib
in Ninevah is still there today. Â*He plainly says on it that Hezekiah
paid tribute to him, and he was such a nice guy that he just went home
after he got the money.
Great. Sennacherib went home and left Jerusalem unsacked. That doesn't
mean that it was due to the angel of the lord slaughtering 185,000
troops in a night.
Why do you favour the oddly magical Biblical account over Sennacherib's?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
186,000 troops. Â*Chaldean historians of the same time said that the
Assyrian army died of plague while besieging Jerusalem, and
Sennacherib fled in great fear back to his own city of Ninevah.
Sennacherib made no mention of losing his army on the column he
erected. Â*He seems to have pretended to his fellow Assyrians that the
army was still somewhere doing something, but his own two sons
murdered him, probably because they were upset about him losing the
army.
So where are God's footprints in all of this? Arguments for both sides
can be made without invoking magic.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, from a military standpoint, the Jews had no chance whatsoever
against the Assyrians. Â*But when it was all over, it was the Assyrian
king who lost everything, including his own life. Â*So I would say, let
atheists of today explain it their way, and let Christians explain it
their way. Â*The Jews explained it by saying that an angel of the Lord
killed 186,000 Assyrian troops. Â*That is a matter of record. Â*It is
recorded in three different books of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament isn't particularly compelling evidence, it suggests
that there was a global flood and special creation over the course of
six days. It might be a "matter of record" on some things, but it is
definitely not on others.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am sure the Jews feel bad that you do not like the Old
Testament, but it says what it says. Â* It says in three different
books that an angel of the Lord went through the camp of the Assyrians
and slew 186,000 soldiers.
It also says that the universe was created a handful of thousands of
years ago. The Bible is not reliable.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, as I said before, you atheists believe in relativity of time
unless you are talking about the earth. Â*Then you insist on absolute
time.
Instead you make some ridiculous claims about the relativity of time
completely without evidential basis, or... any rational support at all.
The Earth is older than 6500 thousand years old. Much older. I'll go
with the many independent lines of verification on that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, that is fine, but why is relativity of time something that
exists except when talking about the earth?
Because Earth isn't travelling at near light speed. I'm no physicist but...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what makes you believe that motion is the only factor that would
affect time?

Oh *do* tell what else works...- Hide quoted text -


I don't have any equations except for motion yet, but indications are
that other factors affect time also.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 8, 9:38Â*am, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:53 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:42 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:55 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 8:35 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:03 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:59 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:19�pm, Enkidu wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:22183802-cf28-4305-af11-
:
You are the one being deliberately obtuse. � The existence of the
tunnel validates many other things said in the Bible about the
Assyrian invasion of Judea.
"The Hobbit" talks of ale, axes, and forests which we know exist. Does that
validate Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, trolls, magic rings, walking trees and Tom
Bombadil?
--
Enkidu AA#2165 �
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public
schools, or health insurance for all?
� � �-Kurt Vonnegut
Why don't you decide for yourself? Â*You were the one who thought of
it.
Why don't you try to defend your assertions? How can we know we can
trust what you say?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It does not matter to me what you trust. Â*You decide what you are
going to trust.
If you can't provide any sensible reason to believe your fanciful
claims, then I guess we're done.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fanciful claims? Â*I said that the Jews dug a tunnel as a conduit for
water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam. Â*Why do you think
that is a fanciful claim?
That is not a fanciful claim. You and I both know that I'm referring to
your supernatural claims. Those would be the ones you're completely
unable to support with any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have not made any claims to atheists except that the Jews dug a
tunnel to be used as a conduit for water, and the Assyrians built a
ramp out of dirt to get over the city wall at Lachish.. Â*To an atheist
these might seem like supernatural claims because there were actually
people working to accomplish both of these tasks instead of just
giving orders, criticism, etc., the way atheists do. Â*Since atheists
have been unable to visualize these two events, there is no reason to
proceed on to anything more complex.
Then we're in total agreement. A tunnel was dug a long time ago and it
got mentioned in some ancient writings, providing absolutlely no support
for any supernatural claims.
So why all the posts?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You do not seem to be visualizing it very well. Â*The Assyrians came
into Judea with an army of hundreds of thousands on their way home
after taking a big chunk of Egypt. Â*Judea was a little dot in the
middle of the Assyrian kingdom, which extended from the Caspian Sea to
Egypt. Â*So why was there still a Kingdom of Judea when King
Sennacherib got back to his capitol city of Ninevah? Â* Sennacherib
himself says there was on the column he had erected in Ninevah.
Or so the story goes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What do you mean so the story goes? Â*The column erected by Sennacherib
in Ninevah is still there today. Â*He plainly says on it that Hezekiah
paid tribute to him, and he was such a nice guy that he just went home
after he got the money.
Great. Sennacherib went home and left Jerusalem unsacked. That doesn't
mean that it was due to the angel of the lord slaughtering 185,000
troops in a night.
Why do you favour the oddly magical Biblical account over Sennacherib's?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
186,000 troops. Â*Chaldean historians of the same time said that the
Assyrian army died of plague while besieging Jerusalem, and
Sennacherib fled in great fear back to his own city of Ninevah.
Sennacherib made no mention of losing his army on the column he
erected. Â*He seems to have pretended to his fellow Assyrians that the
army was still somewhere doing something, but his own two sons
murdered him, probably because they were upset about him losing the
army.
So where are God's footprints in all of this? Arguments for both sides
can be made without invoking magic.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, from a military standpoint, the Jews had no chance whatsoever
against the Assyrians. Â*But when it was all over, it was the Assyrian
king who lost everything, including his own life. Â*So I would say, let
atheists of today explain it their way, and let Christians explain it
their way. Â*The Jews explained it by saying that an angel of the Lord
killed 186,000 Assyrian troops. Â*That is a matter of record. Â*It is
recorded in three different books of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament isn't particularly compelling evidence, it suggests
that there was a global flood and special creation over the course of
six days. It might be a "matter of record" on some things, but it is
definitely not on others.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am sure the Jews feel bad that you do not like the Old
Testament, but it says what it says. Â* It says in three different
books that an angel of the Lord went through the camp of the Assyrians
and slew 186,000 soldiers.
It also says that the universe was created a handful of thousands of
years ago. The Bible is not reliable.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, as I said before, you atheists believe in relativity of time
unless you are talking about the earth. Â*Then you insist on absolute
time.
Instead you make some ridiculous claims about the relativity of time
completely without evidential basis, or... any rational support at all.
The Earth is older than 6500 thousand years old. Much older. I'll go
with the many independent lines of verification on that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, that is fine, but why is relativity of time something that
exists except when talking about the earth?
Because Earth isn't travelling at near light speed. I'm no physicist but...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what makes you believe that motion is the only factor that would
affect time?
Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your notions, it's hard to know what
you're on about.

What makes you think that you know better than every mainstream
peer-reviewed physicist on the planet?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Every mainstream peer reviewed physicist on the planet uses the
Lorentz equation. Â*There is no way that the Lorentz equations could be
more than a close approximation.

Why? Because you say so?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because they show that anything that reaches the speed of light has no
length.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 8, 9:38Â*am, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:53 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:42 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:55 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 8:35 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:03 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:59 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:19�pm, Enkidu wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:22183802-cf28-4305-af11-
:
You are the one being deliberately obtuse. � The existence of the
tunnel validates many other things said in the Bible about the
Assyrian invasion of Judea.
"The Hobbit" talks of ale, axes, and forests which we know exist. Does that
validate Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, trolls, magic rings, walking trees and Tom
Bombadil?
--
Enkidu AA#2165 �
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public
schools, or health insurance for all?
� � �-Kurt Vonnegut
Why don't you decide for yourself? Â*You were the one who thought of
it.
Why don't you try to defend your assertions? How can we know we can
trust what you say?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It does not matter to me what you trust. Â*You decide what you are
going to trust.
If you can't provide any sensible reason to believe your fanciful
claims, then I guess we're done.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fanciful claims? Â*I said that the Jews dug a tunnel as a conduit for
water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam.. Â*Why do you think
that is a fanciful claim?
That is not a fanciful claim. You and I both know that I'm referring to
your supernatural claims. Those would be the ones you're completely
unable to support with any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have not made any claims to atheists except that the Jews dug a
tunnel to be used as a conduit for water, and the Assyrians built a
ramp out of dirt to get over the city wall at Lachish. Â*To an atheist
these might seem like supernatural claims because there were actually
people working to accomplish both of these tasks instead of just
giving orders, criticism, etc., the way atheists do.. Â*Since atheists
have been unable to visualize these two events, there is no reason to
proceed on to anything more complex.
Then we're in total agreement. A tunnel was dug a long time ago and it
got mentioned in some ancient writings, providing absolutlely no support
for any supernatural claims.
So why all the posts?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You do not seem to be visualizing it very well. Â*The Assyrians came
into Judea with an army of hundreds of thousands on their way home
after taking a big chunk of Egypt. Â*Judea was a little dot in the
middle of the Assyrian kingdom, which extended from the Caspian Sea to
Egypt. Â*So why was there still a Kingdom of Judea when King
Sennacherib got back to his capitol city of Ninevah? Â* Sennacherib
himself says there was on the column he had erected in Ninevah.
Or so the story goes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What do you mean so the story goes? Â*The column erected by Sennacherib
in Ninevah is still there today. Â*He plainly says on it that Hezekiah
paid tribute to him, and he was such a nice guy that he just went home
after he got the money.
Great. Sennacherib went home and left Jerusalem unsacked.. That doesn't
mean that it was due to the angel of the lord slaughtering 185,000
troops in a night.
Why do you favour the oddly magical Biblical account over Sennacherib's?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
186,000 troops. Â*Chaldean historians of the same time said that the
Assyrian army died of plague while besieging Jerusalem, and
Sennacherib fled in great fear back to his own city of Ninevah.
Sennacherib made no mention of losing his army on the column he
erected. Â*He seems to have pretended to his fellow Assyrians that the
army was still somewhere doing something, but his own two sons
murdered him, probably because they were upset about him losing the
army.
So where are God's footprints in all of this? Arguments for both sides
can be made without invoking magic.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, from a military standpoint, the Jews had no chance whatsoever
against the Assyrians. Â*But when it was all over, it was the Assyrian
king who lost everything, including his own life. Â*So I would say, let
atheists of today explain it their way, and let Christians explain it
their way. Â*The Jews explained it by saying that an angel of the Lord
killed 186,000 Assyrian troops. Â*That is a matter of record. Â*It is
recorded in three different books of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament isn't particularly compelling evidence, it suggests
that there was a global flood and special creation over the course of
six days. It might be a "matter of record" on some things, but it is
definitely not on others.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am sure the Jews feel bad that you do not like the Old
Testament, but it says what it says. Â* It says in three different
books that an angel of the Lord went through the camp of the Assyrians
and slew 186,000 soldiers.
It also says that the universe was created a handful of thousands of
years ago. The Bible is not reliable.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, as I said before, you atheists believe in relativity of time
unless you are talking about the earth. Â*Then you insist on absolute
time.
Instead you make some ridiculous claims about the relativity of time
completely without evidential basis, or... any rational support at all.
The Earth is older than 6500 thousand years old. Much older. I'll go
with the many independent lines of verification on that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, that is fine, but why is relativity of time something that
exists except when talking about the earth?
Because Earth isn't travelling at near light speed. I'm no physicist but...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what makes you believe that motion is the only factor that would
affect time?
Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your notions, it's hard to know what
you're on about.
What makes you think that you know better than every mainstream
peer-reviewed physicist on the planet?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Every mainstream peer reviewed physicist on the planet uses the
Lorentz equation. Â*There is no way that the Lorentz equations could be
more than a close approximation.
I don't have the grounding in physics to sensibly contend the point. I
will delegate anything beyond my high-school physics to mainstream
scientific consensus. You seem to be at odds with them, if you believe
you really have a breakthrough for physics, you should publish so we may
all benefit from the new knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It cannot be done. Â*I talk to scientists in sci.physics.relativity..
That is all I am ever going to do.

You understanding physics is certainly something that "cannot be done".

You are certainly welcome to your own opinion, Mark.
Robert B. Winn

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:52:46 +0100, The Loan Arranger
wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
The fact that it could all be prophesied does not mean that God
approved of it. It just meant it was going to take place.

You mean he was powerless to stop it? Wow! That must really have chafed.

TLA

Read Job 1 & 2 for some allegorical information on this. God agreed to
back off and let Satan run his agenda for a while, the only
restriction being that Satan could not destroy the entire creation.

So, yes, Satan does initiate some programs that God doesn't like, but
God permits Satan to continue his agenda. The purpose being that
during this process we will all learn enough about sin and rebellion
to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and explore it
any further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute
sovereignty. "Experience is the best teacher." to put it in street
vernacular. Gordon

Antares 531 wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:52:46 +0100, The Loan Arranger
wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
The fact that it could all be prophesied does not mean that God
approved of it. It just meant it was going to take place.
You mean he was powerless to stop it? Wow! That must really have chafed.

TLA

Read Job 1 & 2 for some allegorical information on this. God agreed to
back off and let Satan run his agenda for a while, the only
restriction being that Satan could not destroy the entire creation.

So, yes, Satan does initiate some programs that God doesn't like, but
God permits Satan to continue his agenda. The purpose being that
during this process we will all learn enough about sin and rebellion
to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and explore it
any further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute
sovereignty. "Experience is the best teacher." to put it in street
vernacular. Gordon

Which suggests that god needs Satan to ensure his flawed creations
achieve perfection.

What a strange concept..obviously God isn't an intelligent designer,
relying more on evolutionary development, QA and field testing to get
his product right.

Which puts him slightly lower then Microsoft in the ID stakes, and its
not possible to get MUCH lower.

rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:08�pm, "Smiler" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message


Well, all you are doing is saying that God is guilty of
murder every time a natural death occurs.
----------------------------------------------
Yet you say your supposed god is responsible
every time a baby is born.
[...]

Well, since you are going to be a prosecutor who is
going to indict God, you need to know that I am not
a judge, so take your complaint elsewhere.

Imagine someone who is not a prosecutor.
Imagine someone (like me) who just wants to understand
what you, not God, mean when you refer to "natural deaths".

copy-paste

I have trouble thinking about "natural deaths" in connection
with God. For humans, calling a death "natural" means no one
did anything to bring it about. But doesn't Gospel assure us
: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of
: them will fall to the ground apart from the will of
: your Father. [Matthew 10:29]
Insurance companies would probably call a natural death
an "act of God". What might a death that was NOT God's
will be like?

Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "natural death"
in the context of God's activity in the world, whatever
that activity may be.

First, what would you count as a life saved by God?
Spin some scenarios. It doesn't matter (for once) about
evidence that any of these scenarios has ever occurred.
I'm just asking for your opinion.

What would you count as definitely a God-caused death?
Almost as important: what would you count as a death that
was definitely NOT God-caused? Some possibilities:
Drowning in Noah's flood? Drowning in any other flood?
A lightning strike? A lightning strike from an empty sky?
Cancer that did not receive a prayed-for miraculous remission?
Execution by church members doing God's will?

Assuming that you choose to clarify what you are trying to
say, thanks in advance.

/copy-paste

Jim Burns