Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac
From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Summary of responses to Rick Frey on maltheism
Message-ID: <156@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 00:21:39 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.156
Posted: Thu Nov  7 00:21:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:12:52 EST
References: <387@pyuxn.UUCP> <145@sdcc7.UUCP> <2027@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 133
Xref: linus net.religion:7785 net.religion.christian:1577
Summary: Evidence for God's existence

In article <2027@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
> But clearly that book DOESN'T tell people how to do those things, because
> those who've read the book have persisted throughout modern history to
> pillage, persecute, slaughter, torture, etc. (isn't that enough?) those
> who wouldn't follow their "peaceful joyful" way!  

I wouldn't expect you to make this type of criticism having seen your postings
get taken out of context and twisted till people will accuse you of saying all
sorts of things that you didn't say.  Who's at fault?  You or the people who
take you out of context?  You usually complain about how they blew it when they
do that so I'll go ahead and assume the same for the Bible.  Just because 
people have tried to use it to justify all sorts of wrotten behaviors, DOES NOT
mean that that's what the Bible says.  I've posted quotes till you guys are 
sick of them, but quit trying to figue out what's inside a book by the reaction
of people who claim to have read it.
> 
> > We'll start here.  How do you know that that is my only basis?  I believe
> > that God is revealed through His creation.  I've seen testimony of God in my
> > own life and in friend's life through things like answered prayers, changes
> > that have taken place and even miracles and prophecys (the church I'm at is
> > strongly charismatic).
> 
> And the only way you can believe that testimony as being evidence of the
> existence of god is to believe in your presumption about his existence!
> 
That's not true, but the problem is partly my fault.  I didn't make the dis-
tinction clear enough between me seeing things that (I feel) can have no other
explanation than God and me believing in God because of them.  I am in no way
convinced by arguments of evolutionists (and yes I read net.origins) and
even evolutionary theory makes a major assumption (about the original cause)
that for me is just too difficult to swallow).  About the miracles and 
prophecies, I've seen people pray for things that are so specific and the 
answer has come so quickly that coincedence would be more difficult to believe
than God acting.  You're right in some ways that I come with a innitial belief,
but often (don't tell my Pastor this) but it's a very skeptical openness to the
question, "God, if you're there, prove it to me."  And while I haven't heard
voices or been blinded on the Damascus road, I've seen alot of stuff that's
hard to explain any other way.  Not that it can't be, but that it is.

> > Paul in Romans says what I feel pretty clearly, "For
> > that which is known about God is evident with them for God made it evident
> > to them.  For since the creation of the world, his divine nature and eternal
> > power have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so
> > that they are without excuse."  Romans 1:22 (roughly)
> 
> And Richard Nixon said in his account of the Watergate years "I Am Not a
> Crook",  "It was John Dean all along, we could have done it, but it would
> be wrong, I should have burned the tapes..." Another example of your accepting
> the source as being unbiased.  How can you assume that god is unbiased about
> itself?  ("Because he's god, he wouldn't do that, he's perfect and good..."

If you notice my wording, you'll see that I agree with Paul.  That does not
mean that Paul came up with my idea for me or that I belive it because Paul
belives it, I said that Paul says what I feel pretty clearly.  You use quotes
from other people.  That doesn't mean that you belive in being an indvidual 
because E.E. Cummings told you to, you just like the way he said it.  Here I'm 
not assuming anything about God or the Bible.  There's simply a quote in it
that makes alot of sense to me.

We've talked about kids and punishment and when I see people doing 'evil' 
things, I more often than not see a deliberate willfullness, just like Paul 
talks about.  This is part of the support that I've seen for this quote,
outside of and disregarding the 'assumption' that it must be true.
> 
>> There is no such thing as an evil fact, theory or hypothesis.
> 
> Tell this to certain people in net.philosophy...
> 
But I said it here.  What's wrong with it? If I was forced to try to guess what 
you would say, I'd hope that you agree with me.  Being a guardian for rational
thought and the advancements of science, it would seem inconsistent (with what
little I know of you) for you to disagree.  What do you say on this?
> 
> > Why do you so off-handedly reject my claims.  Just because you make points
> > like this more often than I have done in the past (and would like to do in
> > the future) doesn't mean that you're assertions are less ** founded on **
> > assumptions than mine.
> 
> Rick, I wonder if you recognize the consequences of your admission that you
> and Paul both have belief systems based on equal numbers of assumptions.
> 
Read once more.  I added emphasis to the "founded on" that maybe I should have 
made clearer originally.  Number of and founded on are not the same creatures.
> 
> > Sorry if this appears harsh, but this is blatantly wrong.  Josh McDowell's
> > book cites numerous extra-Biblical sources in support of Christ's existence
> > and claims.  There are the reports of Jewish historians of the time, Roman
> > censuses, letters between Roman officials, official documents and court
> > records discussing Christ and Paul.  If you give any credit to history 
> > whatsoever in terms of accuracy or validity, Christ (maybe only second to 
> > the apostle Paul) is the best substantiated figure of antiquity.
> 
> All those things prove is the EXISTENCE of a person, not his claims (or yours)
> to his divinity.  Paul is right on the mark:  McDowell is an extremist
> presumptivist.
> 
Wow, everyone likes shooting down McDowell when it at least appears that they've
never read what he's written.  McDowell goes through painfully and tries to 
prove Christ's (and the Bible's) claim that He rose from the dead (using all
sorts of extra-Biblical writings and also logical arguing).  That would at
least make Him special if not divine.  McDowell also gives lots of historical
evidence that a figure, referred to as Jesus (or the Christ) went around doing
miracles (and so did Paul and the other apostles) and they to a smaller extent
are also substantiated.  McDowell has a huge section supporting Christ's claim
to be the Messiah by going through all the Old Testament phrophecies and 
showing how He fulfilled them.  McDowell deals specifically with Christ's 
claims and no he does not just use the Bible.  Stop using the Nixon example.
It would be great if it applied completely, but it doesn't.
> 
> People don't "simply choose" out of thin air to do particular things.  They
> choose things based on material causes, the result of their upbringing and
> experiences.
> 
I'm not denying that there are models, examples and influences pushing kids in
both directions.  But I just simply and completely disagree that all behavior
is determined by the factors you list above.  As people we have the ability
to take those forces into our minds, away from much (not all) of the socialized
world and refigure what these mean to us and what our behaviors should be.  
Human interaction can not be defined as a simple action-reaction pair as many
bahavioral psychologists would have us believe.

> > If we have the free will to fight against the damager-God, why don't we have
> > the free will to choose to be bad?
> 
> Who said we did?
> -- 
Paul did.  I asked him about people fighting back against the damager God and
he backed off from all people being dupes to allow either some special few or
maybe everyone (I'm not sure which) to be able to choose and innitiate action
against the damager God.  If Paul said it, I believe it and that's the end of
it!  :-)

				Rick Frey