tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5739916541468386842..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Atheists Always Win in DebatesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58304406693700585822010-03-02T10:03:01.622-05:002010-03-02T10:03:01.622-05:00Wow. Looks like the document DOES exist. (Everyon...Wow. Looks like the document DOES exist. (Everyone who said it didn't apology accepted). =) Looks like the quote was EXACTLY right. Just as I stated.<br /><br />And just for your own edification... It appears they may soon be changing their position on Noah's flood. =)<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/shell-crusher-dinosaur-terrorized-sea/?test=faces<br /><br />Enjoy! =)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6325214189089026072010-02-20T14:46:30.659-05:002010-02-20T14:46:30.659-05:00@ Jonathan: No problem -- I didn't really care...@ Jonathan: No problem -- I didn't really care much either way, but the disagreements over the letter grew with such intensity that I thought I'd just try to do something about it!jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22797571348521198682010-02-20T02:28:51.100-05:002010-02-20T02:28:51.100-05:00@hendy
Thanks for going threw the trouble and fin...@hendy<br /><br />Thanks for going threw the trouble and finding out that information! :)Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20640204652992590492010-02-19T03:05:32.636-05:002010-02-19T03:05:32.636-05:00I guess that about sums it up...lol..still dont se...I guess that about sums it up...lol..still dont see the relevance Eldner was trying to get at with this post anyway?...historical places and people dont prove miracles and ressurections!<br /><br />Funny though....?....after all the messages back and forth on here, Eldner refused to admit the rest of the info you provided here!<br />Seems very unchristian and dishonest trying to prove a point that way!<br /><br />EVERYONE CAN PICK THEIR JAWS UP OFF THE FLOOR NOW!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14999238597916414552010-02-19T00:48:20.540-05:002010-02-19T00:48:20.540-05:00Letter received from the Smithsonian Anthropology ...<b>Letter received from the Smithsonian Anthropology Department!</b><br /><br />I received an email today from Ann Kaup, Head of the Anthropology Outreach Office of the Smithsonian Institution today with the full letter referenced in several posts here.<br /><br />The full letter may be downloaded from my google site <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/jwhendytank/home/BIBLE.DOC" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />I will also post what I think is most pertinent. The bit being used on many religious sites says, says the following (first used and cited by <i>Eldnar</i> above: <i>"...much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."</i><br /><br />The part directly after that in the Smithsonian letter (cleverly omitted from the snippet above) is this: <i>"However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, chapters 1‑12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. It was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel). <br /><br />It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God‑human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document."</i><br /><br />Take away message for me? 1) Archeology probably won't ever prove the Bible one way or another. 2) I think the missing passage from the Smithsonian letter creates a pretty different picture of their stance with regard to the Bible. While verified in some ways archaeologically, the Smithsonian pretty clearly states that the history used in the Bible is specifically tailored to explain theological claims. Anyway, I just wanted to post a follow up to help the heated discussion about the letter.<br /><br />A screenshot may be found <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/jwhendytank/home/email_proof.png" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> for anyone doubting the validity of the email I received.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38009902193808080612010-02-18T12:52:01.087-05:002010-02-18T12:52:01.087-05:00What im saying here, is that according to the Bibl...What im saying here, is that according to the Bible and the christian faith, no one can be saved apart from belief in Christ!<br /><br />Believing He was the son of God, the messiah, the sacrifice for sins...etc...<br /><br />How would you say that people can be saved without ever hearing of Christ whether or not they are honestly seeking God?<br /><br />I am assuming you are christian, my apologies if not!<br />But this is besides the original posts.shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33565958870520260652010-02-18T12:44:13.429-05:002010-02-18T12:44:13.429-05:00To Al Moritz.
I checked the link you gave me?
I d...To Al Moritz.<br /><br />I checked the link you gave me?<br />I dont see how it is applying to people of other religions who are seeking God!<br /><br />It states that not everyone who is saved has to necessarely belong to the church, but it doesn't omit belief in Christ.<br /><br />As far as i can tell, my question hasn't changed?<br />Maybe im not seeing your point properly?shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22433024453366114002010-02-18T09:57:03.530-05:002010-02-18T09:57:03.530-05:00Shane:
To Al Moritz
You christians would say tha...Shane:<br /><br /><i>To Al Moritz<br /><br />You christians would say that Muslims, or Hindus, or Mormons..etc..will not be saved because they believe in a false faith.....yet aren't they equally seeking God?</i><br /><br />Why don't you read the link first?Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32498872492981500652010-02-17T21:32:05.805-05:002010-02-17T21:32:05.805-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49780109638205942912010-02-17T00:21:14.238-05:002010-02-17T00:21:14.238-05:00To Al Moritz
Also, you said (those who honestly s...To Al Moritz<br /><br />Also, you said (those who honestly seek God but have never heard of Jesus can nontheless be saved)<br /><br />Well....what about the people of Canaan in the Bible, or any religion or faith....? are they not all honestly seeking God?<br /><br />You christians would say that Muslims, or Hindus, or Mormons..etc..will not be saved because they believe in a false faith.....yet aren't they equally seeking God?<br /><br />When the Bible says that the people of Canaan were enemies of God for worshiping false gods, weren't they equally seeking God?<br />According to the scriptures, God never revealed Himself to these people or gave them the ten commandments, so how would they know who the true god was?<br /><br />YET!!!! according to christians, none of the examples i mentioned will be saved even though they are or were, honestly seeking God!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12569597056809563712010-02-17T00:02:46.963-05:002010-02-17T00:02:46.963-05:00To Al Mortitz.
Thank you for replying.
In regards...To Al Mortitz.<br /><br />Thank you for replying.<br />In regards to your first paragraph, what evidence would that be?<br /><br />If you read my post to Hendy just above, you will understand where im coming from.<br /><br />I understand Jesus sentiments here, but they dont hold much promise even for the people in His day whom He was speaking to, nevermind us today 2000 years later!<br /><br />We are told through out the gospels of the miracles that Jesus performed and were seen by the disciples.<br />They apparently saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and a twelve year old girl aswell.<br />But the gospels say that when the women told them Jesus had risen, they did not believe, they thought the women were telling idle tales!<br /><br />These were Gods elect!<br /><br /><br />Also, God did not seem to have an issue being coersive within the Bible when making Himself known!<br /><br />In regards to your last message, I will look up the website, but as a former christian, i do remember that Paul said those who dont know Christ will be a law unto themselves at the judgment, but i see any evidence that anyone can be saved apart from belief in Christ!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />In regards to your last paragraph, I will look up the website,shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90653309206615738722010-02-16T19:19:42.825-05:002010-02-16T19:19:42.825-05:00Shane:
It might be argued that God has left evide...Shane:<br /><br />It might be argued that God has left evidence (divine revelation, evidence from the natural world)in just the right amount for people who seek Him to find Him, and for people who reject him to do so without being unable to dismiss the evidence.<br /><br />The evidence is clear enough, but not coercive, and more evidence probably would not be coercive enough either:<br /><br />"[Jesus] said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)<br /><br />On the other hand, God did not make it impossibly hard to find him. For example, those who honestly seek God but have never heard of Jesus Christ can nonetheless be saved, see:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus<br /><br />heading: Roman Catholic interpretationAl Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24494267849374701312010-02-16T11:15:12.930-05:002010-02-16T11:15:12.930-05:00To Al Moritz.
I have a question for you?
You are...To Al Moritz.<br /><br />I have a question for you?<br /><br />You are more or less saying that God hides himself so that we will choose by faith to believe and love Him. And that it is only meritous to do it on faith alone.<br /><br />But yet, in the Bible, even the disciples themselves did not believe in Jesus resurrection until they saw Him for themselves!<br /><br />Thomas didn't even believe until he put his finger through Jesus hand!<br /><br /> These men who were with Jesus through out His ministry, seen all the miracles He did and yet they didn't believe without seeing!<br /><br />So how would God excpect people 2000 years later to believe on faith without seeing anything?shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24080339445243978852010-02-16T09:14:14.659-05:002010-02-16T09:14:14.659-05:00To Hendy.
You make a good point. I have asked alo...To Hendy.<br /><br />You make a good point. I have asked alot of christians the same questions. The answer i got the most was (the creation itself is proof of his existence, it even says so in the Bible!)<br /><br />But my response to that answer is-what does the creation (if it is a creation) actuallt prove?<br /><br />Any religion can make the same claim to verify the existence of their god.<br />Also, even if the universe was created, what evidence is there to say that there was only one creator as opposed to a multitued?<br />What proof is there to show that the supposed creator is eternal-omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscient..etc.<br /><br />Even if for arguments sake there is or ever was a creator, nothing in the supposed creation can prove these claims!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59544483952208806572010-02-16T08:41:40.396-05:002010-02-16T08:41:40.396-05:00To Eldner.
Scotland is a real historical place. W...To Eldner.<br /><br />Scotland is a real historical place. William Wallace was a real hisrorical person, with these facts historians would no doubt agree!<br /><br />But if claims were made that William Wallace defeated the English at Sterling by calling down fire and brimstone from the sky to consume them, i think the historical authenticity of that claim would be in serious trouble!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73996530141824343622010-02-16T08:32:13.344-05:002010-02-16T08:32:13.344-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64621786639247779652010-02-16T08:31:00.085-05:002010-02-16T08:31:00.085-05:00Eldner, just because the Bible contains real place...Eldner, just because the Bible contains real places or people, that in no way proves the miraculous accounts made in the Bible!<br /><br />So what if real historical places or people are mentioned?....that doean't prove-miracles-resurrections-and acts of God to be true...!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11919973303400939512010-02-16T08:27:31.802-05:002010-02-16T08:27:31.802-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71412725053183487452010-02-15T23:36:40.122-05:002010-02-15T23:36:40.122-05:00@ Al Mortiz
Thanks for the reply
I don't see...<b>@ Al Mortiz</b><br /><br />Thanks for the reply<br /><br /><b>I don't see the contradiction. I expect that my wife loves me, but she is free to do so.</b><br /><br /><br />I think the analogy is incorrect. Your wife didn’t build a torture chamber in your basement if you refused her love. You didn’t have to marry the specific person you called a wife, you could have married someone else, not married and still live together, or never form a relationship at all. You don’t have these options with God you don’t believe, you don’t practice, and you don’t love, then you go to hell. Your wife didn’t create the world, didn’t pass down a book of 600+ commandments, and wasn’t crucified, raised from the dead, and pay a penalty of some sort so you don’t have to. <br /><br /><b>Love of God is a bit more than just avoidance of punishment, fear of God.</b><br /><br />I am not talking about the fear of god or punishment. You’re being punished solely because you don’t believe in the “Christian God” based on nothing less than “not” believing in the “Christian God”. <br /><br />We also shouldn’t be burdened of the thought of being punished by God I think we are quite capable of doing that ourselves. <br /><br />Maybe you a RCC rather than a Protestant you have a different take on the subject, regrettable it doesn’t make it any easier for me to understand either system of belief. <br /><br /><br />Thanks anyway.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11660791903421806502010-02-15T18:53:19.224-05:002010-02-15T18:53:19.224-05:00@al: I have issues with divine hidden-ness. These ...@al: I have issues with divine hidden-ness. These reasons are biblical. Jesus did not seem too concerned with being hidden 2000 years ago. Sure, he sought solitude, tried to escape being made king, avoided Jerusalem because it 'was not his time', etc. Other than a few cases, however, it is quite easy to find plenty of passages supporting the idea that Jesus did things exactly so they would believe. He was 'glad' that he was not there when Lazarus died 'so that they would believe'. This sounds like, 'I'm glad he died because I know I'm about to raise him from the dead and you'll then believe me more.' He also plainly states, 'If I do this, even if you don't believe me, believe the works so that you know who sent me.'<br /><br />Why be bold then and not now? He seems to indicate that we should expect continued miracles and divine intervening, after all 'behold, I am with you always even to the end of the ages' and 'it is better that I go so that I may send you my Holy Spirit who will teach you all things and bring to mind all that I have told you' and 'these signs will accompany those who believe...' etc. Do you disagree that scripture seems to indicate that we should actually 'see' Jesus alive and well in our lives?<br /><br />If so, do you agree that the ways in which he was alive and well in the 1st century would have been, to witnesses, for the most part unambiguous? That is, do you think those who saw Lazarus walk out of the grave in mummy cloths just shirked it off? If you agree that both 1) we should see him alive and well in our lives as scripture indicates and that 2) this aliveness and wellness should be unambiguous to all... why are we even having this discussion?<br /><br />The mere fact that Jesus did enough to have to run away to prevent the Jewish people from carrying him off to make him king suggests that he was quite the public figure. Individuals from far off knew him by name well enough to call out for healing when they had never met the guy in their lives. This means word spread relatively fast and far. The two on the road to Emmaus suggest that Jesus would have been considered a shut in for not knowing about the resurrection.<br /><br />Point? I don't see evidence scripturally that Jesus ever commanded anyone to 'write down all that you have seen and heard so that everyone after will believe even though they didn't get the chance to meet me personally.' Therefore, I would expect that he intended we should believe via 'ask anything in my name and it will be done' and foretelling of followers with faith doing miracles. I see no evidence that he was about to retreat into eternal hiding never to reveal himself convincingly again through the power of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />'The father' (aka old testament god) also seemed intensely preoccupied with proving his rightful position as one true god -- he one battles, answered prayer to burn bales of wet hay, protected three children in a furnace, parted the seas, allowed a guy's face to glow after being with him in conversation... every person in the early tribes had the privilege of indirectly experiencing god's presence and existence through these acts.<br /><br />What in the world founds your basis that he is now hidden? I've said this before, and I'll pose it to you. Answer why this statement is not rational and valid:<br /><br />Given divine hidden-ness, if I cannot expect god to answer my request for unambiguous and concrete evidence for his existence because of my doubt, why should a believer be able to claim that god intervened or did something for them as a result of their faith?jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70967314025799756832010-02-15T17:08:17.821-05:002010-02-15T17:08:17.821-05:00Are we free? Really? This is what confuses me. If ...<i>Are we free? Really? This is what confuses me. If we were truly free there would be no need for Adam /Eve, Cain / Able, Flood, tower of Babel, no exodus, no sin, no curse, no rebellion, and no Jesus. There would be no reason to interfere. There would also be no reason for Heaven or Hell. <br /><br />The problem occurs God interferes in the world and has expectation. If God has expectations then there isn't any free will. No expectations you have free will, expectations no free will.</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />I don't see the contradiction. I expect that my wife loves me, but she is free to do so. <br /><br />If God would not make his will clear, we would not know what to do in order to love him. On the other hand, God is not as obviously present in the world as to act as a policeman looking over our shoulder -- you would always do the right thing in the presence of the policeman, and your actions would have no moral merit *). This answers in part the problem of the hiddenness of God. Given that hiddenness, I don't think we have much to complain about not being free.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Another problem is I get from Christians is this message:<br /><br />I can choose to love God or go to hell. It doesn't matter that God created hell in the first place. It matters that God is giving me the choice to believe & worship him or go to hell. </i><br /><br />Love of God is a bit more than just avoidance of punishment, fear of God. That is also why the RCC makes the difference between perfect and imperfect acts of contrition. The former is the willingness not to sin anymore because of true love for God, which includes the desire to genuinely please Him, the latter is the willingness not to sin anymore because of fear of God. While the former is preferable, the latter is sufficient.<br /><br /><br /><br />*) David Wood explains this: suppose you find a wallet with a considerable amount of money on the street. The right thing to do is to return the wallet to its owner. Good people will do this, others not. Yet what happens if a policeman stands there? Everybody would do the right thing with the wallet, and there would be no merit in doing so.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11110453633384493062010-02-15T15:26:20.802-05:002010-02-15T15:26:20.802-05:00@Al Moritz
Are we free? Really? This is what con...<b>@Al Moritz </b><br /><br />Are we free? Really? This is what confuses me. If we were truly free there would be no need for Adam /Eve, Cain / Able, Flood, tower of Babel, no exodus, no sin, no curse, no rebellion, and no Jesus. There would be no reason to interfere. There would also be no reason for Heaven or Hell. <br /><br />The problem occurs God interferes in the world and has expectation. If God has exceptions then there isn't any free will. No expectations you have free will, expectations no free will. <br /><br /><br />Another problem is I get from Christians is this message:<br /><br />I can choose to love God or go to hell. It doesn't matter that God created hell in the first place. It matters that God is giving me the choice to believe & worship him or go to hell. <br /><br />Did I loose anyone?<br /><br />If you could clear this up it would be great.<br /><br /><br />ThanksJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28663575314661084782010-02-15T15:10:43.217-05:002010-02-15T15:10:43.217-05:00Laurel wrote:
What's required for these purpo...Laurel wrote:<br /><br />What's required for these purposes, Eldnar, is a link to the alleged original letter at the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo sites.<br /> <br />Eldnar wrote: <i>No. That's what YOU require. I've never seen the original Constitution, so I can't quote from it? Once again, bad logic. </i><br /><br />The bad logic is yours. The Constitution is an historical document that can easily be found, unlike the alleged letter you're referencing.<br /><br />Laurel wrote: References to such a letter appearing on multiple true-believer websites is no guarantee whatsoever that such a letter exists.<br /><br />Eldnar wrote: <i>You still haven't demonstrated how it guarantees that it DOESN'T exist. </i><br /><br />I haven't claimed, nor guaranteed that it doesn't exist. I've said that claiming that it exists and propagating the idea without verifiable proof that it does, and attributing statements to the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo that you can't confirm, is dishonest.<br /><br />Laurel wrote: My point is that what you've done is dishonest, although the dishonesty may simply be a matter of you not being familiar with the proper use of appropriated material.<br /><br />Eldnar wrote: <i> I'm being dishonest by providing a quote from a website? Apparently you don't know how evidence works. Evidence stands until discredited. Saying, "It's a believer's website" is not discrediting it. </i><br /><br />"Evidence" would be authentic verification from the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo, not claims made by true believer websites who have a vested interest in having those organizations appear to validate their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Laurel wrote: Not at all. You brought the stuff to the table. It's up to you to search for and provide appropriate and operative links to the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo where the information can be found when you post such information. Otherwise, the information is merely hearsay and/or mere rumor.<br /><br />Eldnar wrote: <i>Wrong. It doesn't work like that. I don't have to keep running and bringing data like you're an overseer and can say, "Nope, I want it here." or "Nope, I want it at THIS specific url." It's YOUR job to prove it wrong, so far I'm the only one that has provided evidence, if you don't like the quality of the evidence *YOU* have to disprove it. </i><br /><br />You're apparently accustomed to dealing with people who take a casual attitude toward "evidence." More disciplined people require verifiable evidence from primary sources. Disciplined people check hearsay "evidence" at primary sources as a matter of habit.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88895998813560223442010-02-15T14:31:46.230-05:002010-02-15T14:31:46.230-05:00Chuck,
no, that crime was not part of God's f...Chuck,<br /><br />no, that crime was not part of God's fine-tuning. What the clergy did, the child abuse itself and the collusion to cover it up and simply transfer priests involved to other positions, was a great moral evil. I also very much deplore the manner in which the RCC reacted after the collusion came to light. Not much happened in the way of effective measures or showing true contrition with consequences. For example, the Church should have stripped Cardinal Law of Boston of his position as Cardinal, instead of hiding him in some function in Rome. I believe the whole episode, aside from the suffering that it has caused for the victims, has done incredible, immeasurable harm to the RCC, which should have dealt with things rigorously instead of, basically, going on with business as usual after the court settlements. (Apart from the all-important moral dimension, the handling of the issue by the RCC was one big PR disaster and nightmare.)<br /><br />Why does God allow such moral evil? While in itself the evil seems incomprehensible and is inexcusable, allowing it is the price we pay for the fact that we humans are truly free -- free to do good, and free to do evil as well. But true freedom also allows for true love *), and true choice to believe and love God.<br /><br />Yet I will not make any excuses for the immense human weakness and even by scandalous behaviour of Church leaders, right up to the popes, nor will I make any excuses for the suffering and confusion this has resulted in. However, as emotionally challenging as it may seem, the rational attitude here is to make a clear distinction between the message and the transmitters thereof. And I believe that despite all this weakness and evil, which does *not* outweigh the immense good that the Church has done throughout its history, God still leads the Church and makes sure that the faith itself is not corrupted.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Interesting that you called me dishonest before even knowing my position on the issue. <br /><br /><br />*) While I enjoy how our two dogs show us 'love' and affection, it is also quite clear to me that this is based merely on instinct, as opposed to human love, and thus I cannot value it as highly. Enduring human love is not just based on emotions, but is also a conscious act of the will -- it is not just some chemical storm in the brain which, when worn off, calls for divorce from the partner because the emotional 'kick' is not there anymore.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32510427305885711802010-02-15T12:10:23.509-05:002010-02-15T12:10:23.509-05:00@Hendy
I didn't think to email them. Thanks f...<b>@Hendy</b><br />I didn't think to email them. Thanks for that, it was a good idea.<br /><br /><b>You're fine to attribute the quote to him... just not fine to demand or expect others to believe it!</b><br />I agree. No one has to believe it, but no one is in a position to say, "It's a lie" either.<br /><br /><b>@Laurel</b><br /><b>What's required for these purposes, Eldnar, is a link to the alleged original letter at the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo sites.</b> <br />No. That's what YOU require. I've never seen the original Constitution, so I can't quote from it? Once again, bad logic.<br /><br /><b>References to such a letter appearing on multiple true-believer websites is no guarantee whatsoever that such a letter exists.</b><br />You still haven't demonstrated how it guarantees that it DOESN'T exist.<br /><br /><b>My point is that what you've done is dishonest, although the dishonesty may simply be a matter of you not being familiar with the proper use of appropriated material.</b><br />I'm being dishonest by providing a quote from a website? Apparently you don't know how evidence works. Evidence stands until discredited. Saying, "It's a believer's website" is not discrediting it. =)<br /><br /><b>Not at all. You brought the stuff to the table. It's up to you to search for and provide appropriate and operative links to the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo where the information can be found when you post such information. Otherwise, the information is merely hearsay and/or mere rumor.</b><br />Wrong. It doesn't work like that. I don't have to keep running and bringing data like you're an overseer and can say, "Nope, I want it here." or "Nope, I want it at THIS specific url." It's YOUR job to prove it wrong, so far I'm the only one that has provided evidence, if you don't like the quality of the evidence *YOU* have to disprove it.<br /><br /><b>@Chuck</b><br /><b>I am sorry if you think your lies deserve a polite response. They don't. I find the ideologies you defend and the dishonest means by which you defend them evil.</b><br />You still haven't shown a single lie. Is quoting a website you disagree with a lie? If so, you're in a world all your own. I'm curious though, what ideology have I stated that I defend? Or are you pulling that out of thin air (aka LYING).<br /><br /><b>@Jonathan</b><br /><b>You would think Eldnar you would have the highest set of standards when offer your view since Christians value honesty. Since the popularity of the topic one could find a ton of stuff regarding this on the web.</b><br />Who said I'm a Christian? LOL. From what I've seen so far, Christians do seem to value honesty more than the atheists on this board. All I've seen is name-calling and cursing from the atheists. <br /><br /><b>I have a paper, which I hadn't seen personally, but I know that it exists, because I had seen clips, from unknown web sites, that support my opinion,</b><br />Yup. It's called the U.S. Constitution. <br /><br /><b>A honest person would either have the doc then present it or doesn't have the doc and wouldn't present it.</b><br />You still haven't told me why I couldn't quote from the Constitution because I don't have a copy on my desk. <br /><br /><b>Even when I bring up AIG claims the Smithsonian is propagandist machine for the theory of evolution, Eldnar claims I then believe the world is 6000 years old. Which had nothing to do with the orgianl topic</b><br />Well because you chose a pretty odd source for your appeal to authority. I was illustrating that it's odd that you would appeal to a source your find TOTALLY dishonest. I would NEVER appeal to the Flat Earth Society, even if they did agree with me on one minor point. The point you are appealing to a authority that you find completely dubious, and their claims dishonest. This is your authority?!?! You sir make extremely dubious claims. Remember, YOUR direct quote that you don't care about truth. Very little you say can be trusted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com