Zixar

Abigail: Funny, I didn't get that at all. I thought you were just playing a rhetorical devil's advocate. I've got no problems with your line of questioning if you wish to continue. It's just a little busy here this afternoon... ;)-->

Oakspear: I'm no stranger to sarcasm. I just don't have anything left to say to you.

Abigail: Sorry for being so abrupt, I was involved in another squabble elsewhere at the time I answered you and I'm afraid it spilled over here. That's entirely my fault, and I apologize for being so rude. I'll try to give more thoughtful answers to your current questions, but I'm running out of time at the moment. Apologies, Zix

Long Gone: Thank you! It's about time somebody finally got what I was saying. If you actually still believe in Christ, you're a fool for rejecting him. If you truly don't any more, then the question is moot--might as well renounce The Smurfs and Santa Claus in the same sentence, a la George.

I don't see why you feel you must resort to such pedantic questions, but the answers are: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. 4) No. 5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen? 6) No. 7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound. 8) No. 9) The descendants still had free will.

lindy: You said "For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. " The problem with that is when we are dealing with things beyond our perception we don't ever really "know" what we're dealing with. In physics, the realm of the subatomic particles does not behave like the larger, more tangible realms. All we can really do is observe the initiators and products of various invisible particle interactions--it's a "black box" problem. If we dump apples, sugar, flour, and butter into a black box and a hot apple pie comes out the other side we're really just guessing at what's going on inside the box. There are several theories, each with their pros and cons, like there's a baker and an oven in the box and he's making the pie like anyone else would. Or, there's a very tiny bazaar in the box, in which certain food items are taken as trade goods for the apple pie vendor. Or, there's some elves in a hollow tree with magic wands who produce the apple pie out of nothing and then sell the input ingredients in Elf-Land to make money. All sorts of ideas come to mind, both exotic and mundane, but the truth is that if you can never see inside the black box, you never really know how the process works. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sets limits on the amount of information we can gain in the subatomic world. If Heisenberg is correct, then there are things we simply cannot know. It doesn't stop us from working with what we've got, speculating on what's inside the box. Suppose the experimenter substituted cherries for apples to see what he'd get. In some of those cases above, he'd get a cherry pie, in others, he'd still get an apple pie. Whatever comes out of the box, someone's pet theory is going to get shot down. Things on the other end of the spectrum are just as inscrutable, if not moreso, than the subatomic. Is there anything outside the Universe? What is it expanding into, if anything? We can come up with some very elaborate reasons for why things happen on those grand scales, but since we can't just reach out and touch the end of the Universe, we're still just guessing again. And again, that doesn't stop us from speculating, theorizing, trying to come up with a seamless, unbroken explanation for the Universe. With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be. It would normally be of no more consequence that your Smurf speculation, save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years. The evidence is all anecdotal, but it's enough to start working with. Despite all the mud slung at Christianity, it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. In that sense, religion is a lot like particle physics--a bunch of theories of wildly-varying validity being slowly pared away over the years until we have something that works--mostly. Quantum mechanics still has some huge gaps to overcome (gravity, for one) but it has had enough success to keep going down that path. We know the obstacles, the trick is in modifying the theory to account for them as best as possible. Same way with apparent Bible contradictions. If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have. But there's something there, hard to define though it may be, apparently working for a lot of people, even if we don't fully understand it.

_Here's my "imaginary" script: (bold type in Zixar's quote added by me) The implication of _that_ statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were _not_ honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's _not_ what you're saying? Yes. That is NOT what I'm saying, that's what you are mistakenly inferring and ascribing to me in your ignorance.See that bit right before the bit you bolded? Here, I'll make it easy for you: "Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..." See, that's not what normal people call a "lie". I never called you or anyone else a liar, and I never even implied such, despite the inference you immediately leapt to. I'm sure you feel quite justified and sincere when you spout your evasive drivel. But that's just it--evading the question when you've already demonstrated it had a very simple and straightforward answer isn't necessarily lying, but it is being dishonest. That's what I said, that's what I implied. You just got it wrong. Deal with it. I'm tired of putting up with your mischaracterizations and straw men.

Priceless... :D-->

Abigail: Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship. I might believe that "with great power comes great responsibility", but that doesn't mean I'm ambiguous over whether Spider-Man exists or not. I might like the trains to run on time, but that doesn't mean I'm a Mussolini fascist, either. Buddha might have said some things I'd agree with, but my rejection of him doesn't have anything bearing on the validity of what he said. You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion? The point is that it's not like you never believed in Christ. (Unless, of course, your entire time in TWI you were lying to everyone about it. I have no way of knowing if you were sincere back then.) The arguments you and Oak keep putting forth are only relevant to agnostics who never were Christians. It's not like you're waiting to be convinced, you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". That's not even a very subtle distinction. As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory.

George: You and I track on 13 out of 15 (4&9, obviously) so 86% isn't too bad, is it?

You think of it in a positive way, I think of it as not so positive. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeenient." :)--> I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. Just as the seemingly-impossible teleporting electron is a convenient guess that makes the math work, the seemingly-invisible Supreme Being is just as convenient an explanation for the Universe. It's the convenience in the simplifying assumptions in both cases that lies entirely in the realm of FAITH. Faith is not confined to religious matters, that's all I'm saying.

Oakspear: Well, since you had a relevant example, why did you waste so much time with personal attacks on me instead of just answering the question in the first place? "No, I wouldn't, because I already had a similar opportunity in a car wreck and didn't turn back to Jesus." No gray area to that answer, is there? lindyhopper: The relevance of the teleporting electron example is that in order to construct a theoretical model of electron orbit transfer, the scientists are postulating an otherwise-impossible trait--teleportation--in order to make the model match current observations. Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered, even though we cannot measure its behaviors, parameters, or even existence directly. That does NOT mean that God can be proven via a process of natural deduction, and I have never said otherwise. Even Godel's Ontological Theorem makes a certain axiomatic assumption which is experimentally indefinite. It does mean, however, that by definition, natural deduction cannot disprove God either, since the definition of supernature precludes an encompassing natural explanation. Since nature is but a subset of any existing supernature, we have insufficient ability to define anything but natural phenomena in natural terms.

This is more a symptom of problems happening at the other end, or along the path, rather than on your PC itself. If the server you're trying to reach is congested or if the network segment it shares is experiencing high volume, your request has to wait. This would be especially true of search-intensive, or heavy-processing sites like a map site. Here's a quick way to tell by tracing the route. Go to Start/Run... and type in "cmd" (without the quotes). This will open up a command window (DOS box). Type in "tracert gscafe.com" (again without the quotes) and hit Enter. It will start showing a list of all the different "hops" between different computers that your request is taking to get to gscafe.com. It will list the time in milliseconds it takes the data to travel from one hop to the next. If the time is shown as " When you're done playing around with tracert, just type "exit" and hit enter to close the command window.

Oakspear: Wow, that was certainly dramatic. Feel better? --> The atheists usually have no problem saying "Nope, not even on my deathbed." The believers have no problem saying "Of course, I'd turn to God." There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer, no matter how one might pontificate and procrastinate, because in the end the person will still have chosen one way or the other, period.

You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework? What framework would THAT be? You have completely failed to comprehend my position and instead concocted some convenient fundamentalist stereotype to attack. That's a straw man. Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.) That's a complete fabrication. It seems your memory is as faulty as your comprehension skills. You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you? More delusion. I'm not threatened by it in the slightest. Why do you feel you have to make this an emotional argument instead of a rational one? Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question. Oh, really? Ever seen an electron? Actually seen one move? How did electrons move before quantum mechanics arrived? The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way. You don't know the difference between a "natural fact" and a "current theoretical model". Scientists could come up with a new explanation tomorrow and your jumping-electron "natural fact" would get tossed into the laughingstock bin along with N-rays and cold fusion. Consequently, Christ could come back tomorrow and your certainty over God not being a "fact" would be just as ill-conceived.

Simon: Good question. According to Wierwille's definition, they would fall under "apeitheia". According to yours, they don't. Interesting. I'll have to mull that one over some more. Abigail: Oh, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, or even adequately knowledgeable about Judaica. Sounds like it might be worth looking into, though.

to _you_ it's a simple question, to me, it's simplistic.In what way? Since everyone here (that I know of) once took the PFAL class and stated publicly "I love the Lord Jesus Christ" in session 12, it's a simple matter of reaffirming or recanting your previous statement. Trying to qualify it with some personal definition of agnosticism is just evading the question. Well I'm presented with a false dilemma like yours I generally don't fall for it. Why should I (or any of the other non-Christians) be required to fit our beliefs into your little box? Nobody's requiring you to do anything, Oak. There's no false dilemma, for reasons stated above. If one never believed in Christ to begin with, the point is moot. But since this is an ex-Way discussion board, a previous belief in Christ is a fair assumption. Yes Bramble was honest. So am I, so is Lindy, so is Abigail. It just doesn't fit into your limited understanding.Temper, temper. There's no need to get personal. If I ever turn to Christ it will because I sincerely believe, because I have been convinced to _my_ satisfaction, not because I'm trying to hedge my bets.Does the fact that you once believed enter into that decision? Is that why you're a Christian, Zixar? Because you have nothing to lose? Wow! What a great testimony. -->Maybe I'll decide to become a Christian someday. Maybe something about it will click and I'll be "glory bound" - but it sure won't be because of arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug, Xians like yourself Zixar. Ad hominem. If you're so unsure of your position that you have to resort to personal attacks, then you might want to reexamine it.

Abigail: Interesting point if you're Jewish. Hadn't really considered that one before. On the rules thing, though, look at it this way--if I knew my son was guilty of a crime, I could forgive him almost anything, but that doesn't mean I'd help him break out of prison. That's the major fallacy in the standard agnostic argument. They require God to be a wish-fulfillment genie and then dismiss Him altogether when they don't get what they want. They want God to be "all-caring" and "all-loving", but they want him to toss being "all-just" when they screw up. Pretty "conveeeenient", as the Church Lady would say. Like I've said umpteen times before, it's not that God won't help, it's that God won't cheat. That just makes the most sense to me. Again, your mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher in California.