[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96 [00:19] War
[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96
[00:19] Warryr (jim@dialin37.connect.ab.ca) joined
#Apologetics.
[00:20] I hate those christian pigs! They think
they know God!
[00:20] Hope you aren't christian
[00:21] Warryr (jim@dialin37.connect.ab.ca) left #Apologetics.
[00:31] Barb (jfranke@ptpm015.olympus.net) joined #Apologetics.
[00:31] Barb (jfranke@ptpm015.olympus.net) left #Apologetics.
[01:16] karen-2 (ajanssen@lbx-ca9-04.ix.netcom.com)
joined #apologetics.
[01:17] karen-2 (ajanssen@lbx-ca9-04.ix.netcom.com)
left #apologetics.
[01:29] jefarama (jdmc@mvo-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com) joined
#apologetics.
[01:31] hi
[01:31] hello...how are you this evening/morning?
[01:31] not bad
[01:32] not much action in this room, huh?
Is it too late?
[01:33] Too late in the evening I mean.
[01:33] maybe too early... this room gets
busy at the weirdest times
[01:34] I see. You visit here often?
[01:35] cam_ (cfthomas@204.251.230.13) joined #apologetics.
[01:35] Helooooo?
[01:35] hello
[01:35] hi cam_
[01:35] What does the ApoloBot do?
[01:36] jefarama: actually...
[01:36] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[01:36] Hey achi, how is everything?
[01:36] I'm an op.. ;)
[01:36] cool!
[01:36] It's all greek to me.
[01:36] apolobot is like logos on #bible
[01:36] oh...just a bible quoter?
[01:36] I see..
[01:36] oops i keep doing that
[01:37] :)
[01:37] should be 2tim not 1tim
[01:39] so anything yall would like to discuss?>
[01:39] a
[01:39] #bible is awefully quiet on this net tonight.
[01:39] cxam_: come to #bible1611
[01:39] k
[01:39] I don't know enough to discuss much
of anything.
[01:40] jefarama: any questions then?
[01:41] Wouldn't even know what to ask or
where to begin. Sort of like asking a 3rd grader about
particle physics!!!
[01:41] dfrag (blairej@143.207.68.54) joined #apologetics.
[01:42] :)
[01:43] Ok, what about Particle Physics? hehehe
[01:43] well, we can just chat then.. eh?
[01:43] sounds great to me...
[01:47] So, are you all Christians?
[01:47] I am
[01:47] Action: cam_ is a Christian.
[01:48] nobyte (necessity@slip192.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined
#apologetics.
[01:48] cam_ (cfthomas@204.251.230.13) left #apologetics.
[01:48] greetings
[01:48] hello
[01:49] Nick change: nobyte -> anselm
[01:49] hi nobyte
[01:49] hey there, what's up?
[01:49] not much, how are you?
[01:49] not much.. just chatting at the moment
[01:50] just looking for some stimulating conversation.
[01:50] anselm: got a topic?
[01:50] particle physics?
[01:51] are you guys regulars on this channel?
[01:51] no
[01:52] I've been a regular for awhile
[01:53] Are you both Christians/
[01:53] ?
[01:53] yes, just recently. :)
[01:53] just recently became one, that is.
[01:54] I am yes
[01:54] Catholic, Protestant, what variation?
[01:54] Are you?
[01:54] No, but I once was.
[01:55] Action: Achimoth is of the Anabaptist school
of thought, as Acolyte loves to point out to me all
the time.
[01:55] Is that descended from Erasmus, Achimoth?
[01:55] And does it entail pacifism?
[01:56] it simply entails that one believes
in acceptance then baptism, as opposed to the RC tradition
of infant baptism
[01:57] Oh. There must be more to it than that,
isn't there?
[01:57] I'm basically a Fundamentalist, though
i am not a "religious" fundie
[01:57] Infant baptism strikes me as bizarre.
[01:57] what do you mean, not religious fundie?
That seems a contradiction in terms.
[01:59] the original term of Fundamentalist,
meant one wqho believes in and accepts the Fundamentals
of Faith. it did not entail as is usually done nowadays,
a particular ppolitical or social viewpoint
[02:01] I see.
[02:01] But doesn't it imply some of those
practical positions?
[02:02] yes, to a point... but, I live by
faith, not by religion...
[02:02] when one relies on works to save oneself,
he falls into the trap
[02:03] What trap is that?
[02:04] Do you really like KJV best?
[02:04] yes... but I use many versions in
Bible study
[02:04] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-4.starlink.com) joined
#apologetics.
[02:04] hello
[02:05] hi slackjaw
[02:05] just thought that I would lurk for
a bit...
[02:05] greetings slackjaw
[02:06] Achimoth: do you believe in eventual
damnation for those who disagree w/ the Christian faith?
[02:06] dfrag (blairej@143.207.68.54) left #apologetics.
[02:08] anselm: I believe that one will eventually
receive eternal separation from his Creator in accordance
with his rejection of the One who died to remove that
separation between God and man.
[02:08] and that separation will occur in
the Lake of Fire
[02:08] what is the nature of this separation
- lake of fire, some other kind of torture,or what?
[02:09] And why would it be eternal?
[02:09] anselm: because man was created for
enternal life... in the lake of fire is eternal death
[02:09] I don't think it could be eternal....Wouldn't
that be for all time...past, present, and future?
[02:09] who originally imposed this separation
between man and God, and when did it occur?
[02:10] death being separation... is there
fire as we understand fire? maybe maybe not, there
is obviously something we interrpret as fire.... but
the worse thing is spending eternity in the full knowledge
of what you rejected.
[02:10] OK, everlasting then, jeferama.
[02:10] Makes no difference to my point.
[02:11] Why should anyone be punished for a
disagreement???
[02:11] Especially punished so severely?
[02:12] anselm: we we CREATED to be with God...
when we reject him.. he honors our choice and put us
where he is ot, that being Hell, which as Scripture
says "was made for Satan and his angels."
[02:12] where he is not, even
[02:13] You are implying (by ref. to Satan)
that disbelievers are evil & therefore deserving of
a grim fate.
[02:13] God wishes that all would choose to
follow him and not reject him.
[02:13] That is what I object to.
[02:13] evil? no.. good and evil are relative
terms..
[02:14] this regards obedience and disobedience
[02:14] Then why not be *infinitely* longsufferring,
then?
[02:14] BullFrog` (omnitek@fat-5.cybergate.com) joined
#apologetics.
[02:14] BullFrog` (omnitek@fat-5.cybergate.com) left
#apologetics.
[02:14] anselm: because while God is Love,
he is also Just
[02:14] You have been insufficiently attentive
to the parables of grace, IMO.
[02:15] He incarnated as Jesus Christ to take
his own rightous judgement upon himself, and still
man chooses to go his own way.
[02:15] The laborers - there is no justice in
god. God forbid that there should be justice. There
is only grace - only infinite forgiveness.
[02:15] without Christs atoning death, we
are all lost.....
[02:15] Parable of the laborers, that is.
[02:15] Anselm: Do you find validity in the
parables of grace?
[02:16] if one rejects the gift of grace,
there remains no excuse
[02:16] and must stand on his own merits
[02:16] Yes,jeferama, that is the essence of
the gospel, in whatever sense there could be said to
be a gospel.
[02:16] and our own merits are lacking
[02:17] Then why not so in the words of Christ
regarding hell and salvation? Seems rather like a
pick and choose methodology.
[02:18] If there is punishment for rejection
of grace, then there is no grace! There would be strings
attached. Ppl have always corrupted the good news that
way.
[02:19] anselm: you misunderstand how God
works, he operates within his own laws... a gift rejected
is not a gift given
[02:19] one must accept a gift to receive
it
[02:20] Jesus was the Passover lamb, and as
in Egypt, one must apply the blood for the angel of
death to pass over.
[02:20] Of course it is pick & choose: I pick
out wisdom & love & grace where I am lucky enough to
find them, & discard the chaff of fear & ignorance.
[02:21] Too much blood for my taste, Achimoth.
[02:21] anselm: either you accept the whole
or reject the whole, once you make Scripture relative,
you have no foundation to base your walk with God on
[02:22] Too much talk of distruction. It implies
a hateful god. Not the god of the prodigal son parable.
[02:22] Is your problem with destruction or
the methods used or both?
[02:22] The foundation is love itself, which
in its perfect form is our creator.
[02:22] It is not a book - any book or collection
of books, IMO.
[02:22] anselm: whether you accept it or not..
God is Love, but he is also a Just god.... and he must
satisfy his Laws....
[02:23] the foundation is Jesus Christ...
[02:23] My problem is with vengeance, wrath,
destruction, and all such wretched thoughts.
[02:24] anselm: and thats why you will not
hear what i am saying... you want to make God fit YOUR
idea of what he should be.
[02:24] you do not accept God as He IS
[02:24] No loving parent is primarily concerned
about satisfying laws! That was the attitude of the
older brother inthe prodigal son parable. ANd that
attitude was scorned.
[02:24] You will not accept infinite grace -
it is too scandalous for most people.
[02:25] Anselm: because it is denied in Scripture..
[02:25] Would infinite grace be extended to
Satan and his angels too?
[02:25] God does not force his presence on
those who do not wish it
[02:25] That's the irreconcilable parting of
the ways: I cannot make any book an absolute authority,
& you do.
[02:26] I agree with the last statement about
forcing presence - that's a far cry from hell, tho.
[02:26] Yes, infinite grace wd be extended to
all creatures (not that I believe in Satan).
[02:26] Shroud (yabba-dab@max2-so-ca-20.earthlink.net)
joined #apologetics.
[02:27] Shroud (yabba-dab@max2-so-ca-20.earthlink.net)
left #apologetics.
[02:30] Hello??
[02:30] Anselm: Supposing there is a God..What
do you think would be the best way for God to reconcile
sin in the universe...considering that God's nature
is contrary to it?
[02:30] sorry was busy on another channel
[02:31] no prob - so am I
[02:32] To reconcile sin would be by loving
example inspired among its creatures. That's the beauty
of the incarnation idea in its essence.
[02:32] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-4.starlink.com) left irc:
QUESTION AUTHORITY
[02:33] God is crucified in the very act of
sustaining the creation, but god's love is infinitely
longsuffering.
[02:33] It seems that God did do that in the
Garden of Eden...yet they still choose to sin.
[02:33] you make deity a reflection of man,
as opposed to man a reflection of his deity
[02:35] It is inevitably both ways, Achimoth.
It could be no other way. We cannot escape the process
of making judgements.
[02:35] Suppose this God even came to earth
to live among his creation to teach it the way of truth...and
they kill him?
[02:35] You made a judgement to accept or believe
that the bible is absolutely true.
[02:35] They - we - kill him/her all the time
- and still we are loved.
[02:36] That is the scandal of the gospel -
there is no justice - no fairness there.
[02:37] bitwise (pilgrim@206.153.181.17) joined #apologetics.
[02:37] greetings bitwise
[02:37] and greetings to you anselm :)
[02:38] is there any discussion going on here?
[02:38] there is indeed.
[02:38] what is the topic?
[02:38] the nature of god's love & mercy vis-a-vis
justice & damnation.
[02:39] I deny that there is any justice or
damnation, and Achimoth is defending those concepts
based on the bible.
[02:39] sounds interesting...
[02:39] actually relevatism vs absolutism
[02:39] I can't accept that characterization
since I emphatically reject relativism.
[02:40] what about absolutism?
[02:40] I believe love is an absolute value
- the supreme value at the heart of existence.
[02:40] anselm: by pick and choose you accept
relevatism
[02:40] actually...does God exist.
[02:40] By rejecting *your* particular choice
of absolute, I embrace relativism? I think not.
[02:40] either the bibles message is true
or it is not true....one cannot accept part and reject
part
[02:40] That is a specious dichotomy indeed.
[02:41] Incredible. You're saying it's 100%
erroneous or 100% true?
[02:41] Nothing in this world is likethat.
[02:41] how is it worth using if there is
no consistency?
[02:42] 2+2=5 is either 100% true or 100%
erroneous.
[02:42] if one makes it just a book, it has
no inherent value aside from being a piece of literature
[02:43] How is anything worth using? SOmething
has to be perfect for us to derive value from it??
[02:43] Jef: the bible is a vast collection
of assertions (& more than assertions i.e. poetry, etc),
so there is no analogy to one single math equation.
[02:44] therefore: you have no basis for arguing
your position, as you have no basis for your belief
in a fuzzy idea of a deity that is a loosley defined
emotion
[02:44] I was merely refuting your assertion
that " Nothing in this world is likethat."
[02:44] Literature can & does have enormous value
to inspire & enrich our lives, & to edify & challenge,
& to eventually bring us closer to our creator.
[02:44] because you cannot use the Bible as
a reference of authoirty as you make it only another
writing
[02:45] how can you know it teaches us of
a creator, its only the writing of man...
[02:45] POint taken, jef. I meant things like
literature, history, etc.
[02:45] papa2two (papa2two@navy.blue.rrnet.com) joined
#apologetics.
[02:45] how can anything teaches us of a creator
if he is there... we cant since you have no basis for
beliefs aside from personal opinion
[02:46] i mean there is nothing that we can
say, "Now, that is truth."
[02:46] On the contrary: we have our god-given
reason.
[02:46] Not mere opinion.
[02:46] Logic is not a matter of whimsy.
[02:47] how do you know it is god-given? what
proof do you have of a creator?
[02:47] Case in point: the great ontological
argument formulated by my namesake.
[02:47] anselm: no...but it doesn't always
take us where we need to go...
[02:47] papa2two (papa2two@navy.blue.rrnet.com) left
#apologetics.
[02:48] Well, there is no better alternative,
bitwise, IMO. The alternative is blind leaps of faith.
[02:48] without a frame of reference, logic
becomes an uncoordinated exercise, as their is nothing
to base reasoning on
[02:49] aside from ones personal bias.
[02:49] And that leaves us w/ no way to adjudicate
the rival & absolute claims of various religions of
faith (islam, xianity, etc).
[02:49] Logic is absolute - it requires no basis.
There could be no basis.
[02:50] logic is not an absolute.. thats your
fundamental flaw
[02:50] you have FAITH that logic is absolute
[02:51] for Logic to be absolute one who is
working the logic must be absolute.
[02:51] No - it is not comparable to faith.
That's a tired old lineof apologetics. There is no
*alternative* that is not arbitrary.
[02:51] The creator is the root of all logic
& is thus sufficiently absolute.
[02:52] We can only aspire to, as someone -
perhaps Einstein? - said, think god's thoughts after
him.
[02:52] yes it is, you make a fundamental
assumption that logic and reasoningare abolute... if
ones POV is relative.. his logic is relative.
[02:52] ones POV must be absolute for his
logic to be absolute.
[02:53] It cannot be an assumption if there
is no alternative.
[02:53] who can know there is no alternative?
[02:53] you asuume there is no alternative.
[02:54] POV - that's why we need to engage in
mutual dialog, predicated on genuine good will. So
that we can correct the inevitable relativities of
our respective POV & thus aspire to a closer approximation
of truth.
[02:54] anselm...I'm sorry...I am still unsure
whether you believe in a god or not.
[02:55] ahh.. but we as finite beings can
never gain that total POV needed for absoluite logic.
[02:55] therefore, our logic will always have
a flaw due to not having all factors.
[02:56] We can only try to engage in that dialog
& hope for the best.
[02:56] ahh.. another leap of faith...
[02:56] Achimoth: true, but God did not leave
us without resource, which is why anselms statement
statement is valid.
[02:56] you trust that it will turn out all
right
[02:56] As for alternative - I cannot conceive
of one; anyone is welcome to show me.
[02:57] jeferama: I do not believe in the Xian
god; to me it is an idol. I believe in a supreme, eternal,
noncontingent & perfectly loving & gracious creator.
[02:57] Some would call that god.
[02:58] deism?
[02:59] Yes, I do llike the term deism *except*
for the unfortunate & unjustified notion that it entails
an absentee god.
[02:59] I have a #deism every time I log onto
IRC.
[03:00] UNfortunately I'm discussing the health
care system on that channel right now, but what can
you do? ;-)
[03:00] do you believe in miracles?
[03:01] anselm: I'm just glad we can discuss
this like this without either side resorting to personal
atacks.. ;)
[03:02] Agreed, Achimoth.
[03:02] The thing that annoys me on IRC is the
degree of vituperative interaction I see.
[03:03] Civility is essential to dialog,else
it is merely a game to gratify one's ego.
[03:03] i admit i at times fall into that
trap on certain topics, but I strive not to do so.
[03:03] No miracles, jeferama,not in the sense
that they can occur on demand. That is, I don't believe
omnipotence is logically possible.
[03:04] However, anomalous events do occur with
occasionally wonderful consequences.
[03:04] ahh the concept of kismet
[03:04] Is the creation of the world an anomalous
event or a miraculous event caused by god?
[03:05] kismet? Not familiar (heard the word,
but not sure the meaning).
[03:06] The creation is not necessary IMO, so
it could plausibly be called a miracle in some legitimate
sense.
[03:06] kismet: the hindu conept of everything
coming together in a single instant creating miracles...
[03:06] concept even
[03:06] However, the act of creation, I think,
is the act of kenosis, whereby god sacriifices control
for the sake of love.
[03:07] ie a series of anomolous events working
together to a fortuitous end
[03:08] my dictionary defines kismet as....fate,
or destiny
[03:08] serendipity?
[03:08] goodnight good peoples.
[03:08] Synchronicity?
[03:08] bitwise (pilgrim@206.153.181.17) left #apologetics.
[03:08] yep.. serendipity is another related
term
[03:08] and synchroniciity
[03:09] Fate, I'm not thrilled with, jeferama.
[03:09] it is used to cover a multitude of sins.
[03:09] Those are Webster's words :)
[03:09] well kismet is misdefined as just
fate...
[03:10] Why do you think omnipotence is logically
impossible?
[03:10] Because it cannot be reconciled with
our freedom, & love between god & creatures entails freedom.
[03:11] And yes, I've read Xian attempts to
reconcile them.
[03:11] Suffice it to say I was not convinced
that paradox can be avoided.
[03:11] shema (lewis7@aus-tx4-10.ix.netcom.com) joined
#apologetics.
[03:11] shema (lewis7@aus-tx4-10.ix.netcom.com) left
#apologetics.
[03:12] why does omnipotence deny freedom?
[03:12] |