Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles Message-ID: <857@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 14:19:19 EST Article-I.D.: trwatf.857 Posted: Sat Apr 13 14:19:19 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:16:07 EST References: <281@cvl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 110 Subject: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles > [David Harwood replys to Mike Huybensz] > (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone said > that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, > nevermind talking about? [Lord Frith jumps into the fray] You shouldn't criticize David. Your own grammer and sentence constructs leave much to be desired. Have I accused you of having "hack" your concepts or beliefs because you are unable to articulate them in a way that is easily understood by other people? Of course not. Then don't accuse people of having invalid beliefs simply because they spell one word incorrectly. Seriously. Your articles are very difficult to slog through. Go take English composition 101. You really need to work on this. > [David Harwood] > You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by > perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why do you bother making claims like this without any proof to substantiate them? Have you studied ALL the literary greats throughout time and compared their works to the bible? Why haven't all of the other literary scholars concluded this as well? Now as I recall Paul DID go to one of the better schools at the time and was quite a scholar and debater in his time, but that hardly makes him a "literary genius" as you describe him. Looks to me like you're embellishing the scriptures with your own triumphalistic notions. >> [Mike Huybensz] >> A friendly word of net advice: it doesn't pay to speculate about what I >> do or don't know: instead, stick to discussing my points. > [David Harwood] > Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I want. And you'll still be wrong. You prove yourself even more stubborn and liable by not listening to the valid criticisms of your bretheren. > [David Harwood] > Why do they even have him misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? I think I might have missed *this* one. Which one? Why DID he misquote it (specifically within the context of the record)? >> [Mike Huybensz] >> The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, >> Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their >> favor by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike > Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every > culture. Popular acceptance is NOT a valid test of how "right" or accurate a religion is. Is Christianity REALLY the number one religion in the world? With over a quarter of the world's population in China I would have expected the dominant religion to be found there, but as I say, popular support is not a causal gauge of which religion is the right one. I also think that you'll have a hard time really figuring out just how many REAL Christians there really are out there. A lot of evangelical and charasmatic organizations love to trumpet their claims as to how many people they baptised and saved from damnation last night at the prayer rally in some remote country. Remember, many are called. Indeed many will claim they have been called. But few are actually chosen. > [David Harwood] > This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel > message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by > either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real > world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have > to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness > and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they > shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially > says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if > this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial > survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there > is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. I agree with this. Indeed this fits somewhat into Laura's "if it works, it's right" philopsophy. Remember of course that the above consitutes an informal rationale. Not a proof, but compelling reason. > [David Harwood] > As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, and > not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. Now you're being unreasonable Dave. Only God knows our hearts. Who and what are you to dare usurp his position and authority? By the above you are essentially denying someone what God may decide to provide out of the goodness of his heart. > I've already speculated about these things at length in other replies; > as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, or would > you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely > desire. God acts as he sees fit and not upon your word. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Or as Jabba the Hut would say, "Brrrruuuuuurrrrrrrpppppp!"