 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/
O'Brien's book is very interesting. Thanks for making it available. I look forward to more contact with you folks.
N.O. Poole <taxingwoman@pobox.com>
NC USA - Monday, June 30, 1997 at 15:20:07 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
I think a important point is often ignored in these reglious debates...That is why the hell should we worship some being just because He threatens to punish us otherwise? The punishment can only be in the afterlife, because there's certainly no evidence that He protects his own on this planet. The all powerful being could stop child torture, but he doesn't...so if he exists he can go screw, I'll rot in hell with my morals intact thank you, rather than sell my soul to some power crazy being that just happens to have created a plaything called Earth. I'm sorry Mr. Gish - but I cannot understand why you love God (even if I realise that stupidity leads you to believe in Him).
Graham Edmonds <gje@sv1.smb.man.ac.uk>
Manchester, England - Monday, June 30, 1997 at 07:38:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html
Dear sir i do believe that you have missed the entire boat in the article that you wrote. You see Jesus is it if you accept Him the you goto heaven and spend eternity if you don't then you goto hell and spend eternity. The choice is so that I find it hard to believe that a learned man like yourself cannot make this simple observation.
Allen <allen20@hotmail.com>
USA - Saturday, June 28, 1997 at 22:09:57 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
As I browse through your pages I find it interesting that your attacks on Christianity focus on the "soft targets" of Arminian/dispensational thinkers. You ought to take a look at the writings of Dr. Greg Bahnsen or a publication such as Credenda Agenda. Dr. Michael Horton of CURE would also challenge your simplistic critiques of the Christian world-view. The bottom line is, as we see in the case of Pharaoh, all the miracles and evidence in the world will not change the mind of someone whose heart has been hardened by God and who has been turned over to depravity as an object of wrath.
Jeff Kingswood <emmanuel@execulink.com>
Woodstock, ON CANADA - Saturday, June 28, 1997 at 07:34:01 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
The foundation of christianity, as you asserted with various scriptures, is faith. That is, the belief that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and is the only one with the power to redeem your soul. This is essential to christiantiy-actually it is the most vital ingredient found in the book. And accordingly, those who lacked the faith to believe in Jesus' power to save them were not worthy of his miracles and eventual salvation. So of course Jesus didn't bother with those who didn't deem him fit to be the next messiah. He waS a carpenter, poor, not a nobleman, royalty, or even a Jewish magistrate. God wanted him to live that way so we could see the truth shining through him. The truth that you have to be humble to become close to God; you must discard all of the pomposity and heavy baggage of life. You must become that poor carpenter again and see the basic truth to God's existence. Jesus is life. And this is what you call hypocrisy? Jesus himself said, "And you were saved because you believed." No, you weren't saved because you sorta thought maybe Jesus was God. You weren't saved because you kinda though Jesus's miracles were cool. You were saved because yuou believed in the Son of God. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but he stated these beliefs throughout the Bible. With God everything is possible... all I ask is that you believe. Gee, you'd think he asked you to jump off of the eiffel tower with all of the negative reaction that one simple plea gets. But it remains a fact that Lord never contradicted his statement about faith. Not once. And there is nowhere in the Bible that mentions he suddenly woke up one morning and didn't believe in God anymore. Not one mention of the fact that he ever stopped believing. Try reading the Bible sometime, not for your petty arguments or intellectual stimulation, but for the feeling of pure joy you get by knowing that God loves you. It's hard to look in the mirror and see all the imperfections, the sins, and the darkness. that's what God is about. facing yourself, the darkness within, and learning that you can overcome it.
tani sylvester <tanisanchez@aol.com>
USA - Friday, June 27, 1997 at 12:37:06 (MDT)
The following quotation expresses my understanding of the issue of "Separation
of Church and State", as outlined in the US Constitution. Since it's
author, is heavily referenced in your "giant list" of quotations,
I would assume, it, will make a valid and applicable addition to your compilation
of quotes.
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church
and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government
from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always
stay in government."
--Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists
Mr. Petersen <phoenix@nicoh.com>
Pocatello, ID USA - Thursday, June 26, 1997 at 12:51:21 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
What is the source of your information? I've been unable to find any source which attributes Jefferson with the above quotation.
Sincerely,
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Mr. Petersen is the victim (or, less likely, the perpetrator--I've heard this one before) of a silly hoax that happens to fit his "understanding" of the meaning of separation of church and state. I would be very interested to learn the source for Mr. Petersen's "information." Though it's always hard to prove a negative, I state with great confidence that Thomas Jefferson never said any such thing; there are any number of his writings that directly contradict such a notion. Mr. Petersen would do well to go to any reputable library and read first the Constitution (noting especially all that it says about Christianity), the First Amendment, and then Mr. Jefferson's entire Jan 1, 1802 letter (he didn't "address" the Baptists) to the Danbury Baptists (they would not have wanted Mr. Jefferson to say that, BTW--the Baptists of the day, much persecuted by established churches, wanted liberty for all, not mere tolerance for minorities: "The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils." (Baptist minister John Leland, 1820, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Church and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach, ed., Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p. 53.))
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
You aethiests, despite your enormous intelligence and reasoning power, seem to be just as involved in the subject of God as most of the theists. Fine bit of good it did you to choose aethiesm.
Mike Parus <snowman@axon.axnet.com>
Lombard, Il USA - Thursday, June 26, 1997 at 00:58:46 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Imagine writing to a police officer and saying "You seem to be just as involved in the subject of crime as criminals. Fine bit of good it did you to choose to be a police officer." You are making the patently erroneous supposition that people become atheists in order to avoid having to deal with the subject of God altogether.
By the way, please learn how to spell "atheism."
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_wilson/certainty.html
How can you Christians (or any religion, really) prove that there is a god? Just because some ancient book tells an extremely unbelievable stories about angels and Jesus coming back from the dead? That proves nothing! What if in a thousand years, someone discovers, oh, The Stand, or any other book, and takes it literally, and starts worshiping the heroes? That's all you've done with the bible. I really can't see how people today can be so stupid to believe in any religion. Back in ancient times, the gods were just made up to explain the things we humans could'nt figure out. But today, we have a logical, and/or scientific answer to almost everything. I still think you people are scared, that's why you believe in god. You're scared that there's no supreme being watching over us, and that when you die, you're just dead. And how can you explain all the things your god had to do to prove himself to Moses and all those people, they didn't believe, so god did all that shit to show he was real. How come he dosen't do that now? And don't give me some bullshit answer like back then is when the people first gained knowledge of him, so he had to prove himself! Don't bother praying for me.
Akiki <evgeny@flash.net>
Hell, - Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 19:01:17 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
First off let me tell you how glad I was to find a site like this on the web. I first checked the "religious" sites and found no open type forum for discussing issues of this nature, in all probability a function of their fear of people actually thinking for themselves as opposed to just believing what they are told. One question though, why don't you have inquiries/comments listed for later than April 97? Now a few comments. Information can be lifted out of context and misinterpreted for both sides and frequently is. The simple fact of the matter however, is that one book alone and billions of people who BELIEVE this book, don't mean that what it contains is either true or even accurate. Unfortunately however, that doesn't mean the converse is true either, i.e. that there is no God. There is an entirely appropriate description in mathematics known as "necessary and sufficient". Merely because one proposition can't be proven to be true does not mean it is necessarily false. Now this does relate to probability but logically, existance can't be proven true or false. Secondly I find it curious that the zealots ask why you spend so much time and energy trying to dispel the beliefs in this format, read simply asking people to think, when your format is a passive one, you pose your view and defend only in response to entered questions/diatribes! What worries me most however are the believers in positions of power throughout our country. Where would modern society be today if scientists decided proof, and thus the entire scientific hierarchy of hypothesis, testing, law, etc were unecessary and that we could take things on faith? What is to stop anyone who "believes", irrationally, in god from "believing" that they are his instrument or that all cats are bad or that the sky is really yellow, or something much more malignant? Quite simply nothing, they are capable of believing and justifying anything, much the same as an insane person believes and justifies the murder of an innocent individual. This is by no means all that I would like to say but as I realize that this is not my own personal soapbox I will simply end by again thanking you for making such a format available, and I look forward to responding to comments in the future.
Stan <sed96585@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Orlando, Fl USA - Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 15:25:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
THE "BIG BANG THEORY" DOES NOT IN ITSELF OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF CREATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IN HIS LECTURES OWEN GINGERICH, A NOTED HARVARD ASTRONOMER, COMPARES THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE SO CALLED BIG BANG EVENT TO THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION. ACCORDING TO GENESIS, THE UNIVERSE FLASHED INSTANTLY INTO EXISTENCE IN A GREAT SHOWERING OF LIGHT.
SOME HAVE ASSERTED THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS SELF-GENERATED. THIS VIOLATES, HOWEVER, A PRIMARY LAW OF LOGIC: THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION THAT SAYS THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ITSELF AND THE THING IT CREATES AT THE SAME TIME.
OTHERS SIMPLY STATE THAT THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS SELF-EXISTENT AND INFINITE; IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. YET MODERN SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED NO ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS SELF-EXISTENT. GRANTED, THE WHOLE CAN BE GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS, BUT CAN IT BE OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER ALTOGETHER? CLEARLY NOT.
Marc Rivera <RIVERAM@sv01a.f615.squared.com>
ALB, NM USA - Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 15:14:28 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Boerne v. Flores
In contrast to the position of organizations such as the ACLU, Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, and the Baptist Joint Committee
on Public Affairs, my position was upheld by the Supreme Court:
[URL deleted - Sec.]
Gene Garman <ggarman@sunnetworks.net>
Pittsburg, KS USA - Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 14:56:07 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/
Your page is EXCELLENT! I really enjoyed reading almost everything - but, my favorite is you discussion group.
Just to add some stuff to your humor sections: I heard these stories
in Russia, and probably they are not widely known in the West. They circulate
as a word of mouth there, and it is impossible to trace the author back.
Hope you'll enjoy them.
A man dies, and God tell him: "You see, you were a sinner, so I have
no choice but to send you to Hell. But, you can choose, whether it will
be a Communist or a Capitalist Hell" The man asks "May I look
first?", and God answers: "Why not, go ahead."
So, the man makes a trip to the Capitalist Hell, and asks: "What about
torture 'round here?", and he is answered: "Well, demons work
as their trade union decided - eight hours a day, two days a week off,
and we are burned for only 40 hours per week". Afterwards, he goes
to the Communist Hell, and asks about the conditions there. He answered
"Well, local chapter of the Communist party prescribed demons to work
in three shifts, seven days a week, so we are supposed to be burned non-stop."
The man than asks: "How can you stand that?", and he is answered
"I don't know: I'm here for thirty years, and we have never been burned
since - either demons are drunk, or firewood is not delivered on time,
or something else goes wrong..."
Well, if you like this one, I'll send you more soon. If you decide to post
it, feel free to modify/edit it for clarity
Pacific (aka Dmitri Sobolev) <dsobole3@biology.as.ua.edu>
Tuscaloosa, AL USA - Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 12:55:48 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/funda.html
I just want to briefly comment on the essay concerning the Errancy of Fundamentalism. While it is very clearly, orderly, and logically presented, a false supposition exists. It is impossible for one to determine that the Christian God thinks according to man's logical or rational systems. For example, if a well behaved child were in a candy store and wanted a piece of candy for his good behavior, it is perfectly logical that he should be rewarded. However, if his father is more concerned with tooth decay or ruining dinner, he will not allow his child to have a piece of candy. Is the father irrational and illogical? To the child, the answer seems yes. However, according to the father, he realizes that he is logical in his own right because he shows more concerned about his child than the child shows about himself. What causes this phenomenon? The father's perspective on circumstances. I know that this is a rough analogy, but I thank that it gets the point across. Man is unable to assume that God thinks according to man's logic. So, while the idea that Fundamental Christianity is based on faulty human logic may be true, man's logic concerning God is faulty and, therefore, it has lost its credibility.
Will <wfarley@bellatlantic.net>
va USA - Tuesday, June 24, 1997 at 22:27:25 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
Why don't you quote the verses where it says not to kill, to love one's neighbor, to love one another, to be kind one to another.....Jesus said if you even hate someone you are guilty of murder. He certainly was against murder...and you misrepresented him and the kind of person he was and is.
Sue Bates <Inasmuch@mail.kappa.ro>
Bucharest, Romania - Tuesday, June 24, 1997 at 15:34:16 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/disclaimer.html
I would appreciate it if you could quote the source of the following
quote I found on your huge and wonderful quotes file
"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist
who deserves to be punished." [Muslim religious edict, 1993, Sheik
Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia]
Some People think Shaikh Ibn Baaz was misquoted , I dont know how to answer
that ... but I feel reluctant about giving you as a source because they
will say :" oh they hate islam and they would certainly want to defame
it". So I would really appreciate it if you could kindly provide me
with some other reliable source or more information about the (fatwa) religious
edict.
Shiraz Siddiqui ( very grateful for the existance of this site)
A. Shiraz Siddiqui <assiddiq@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu>
Champaign, IL USA - Tuesday, June 24, 1997 at 10:23:50 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Thanks for this lengthy list of interesting contradictions, et cetera.
A great item on my list of rainy-day browser bookmarks. Like the Library
of Congress, I don't know if/when I'll ever need to make reference to any
of them but I am glad to know someone has taken the time to put it there.
John <MMATCH@HOTMAIL.COM>
DANIA, FL USA - Monday, June 23, 1997 at 15:07:11 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ilhan_arsel/
Excellent work. A page devoted only to debates would be a nice addition.
It takes much too long to search for them.
Jason Filley <jfilley100@aol.com>
Gladstone, MO USA - Friday, June 20, 1997 at 16:53:25 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/
Please add the following to "Reasons Why Sex is Better than
Religion" humor page, thanks!
Sex only makes you lose your mind for a few seconds. (RD)
It is illegal for parents to force sex on their children. (RD)
Saying "Amen" at the end is optional. (RD)
You are not restricted to one kind of sex. (RD)
You don't have to wait until you die to find out if the sex was good. (RD)
New submissions from:
Rod Davies
Please ensure he gets the credit for these gems.
Regards,
Bryan Hayward
Bryan P. G. Hayward <hayward@students.uiuc.edu>
Rantoul, IL USA - Friday, June 20, 1997 at 08:35:04 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
well...i will not try to convince you of christianity because a true belief all boils down to this: faith. at least with christianity anyway. i hold strange beliefs within the christian society but they are all centered around God. basically the only thing that really matters in christianity is that you center God in your life. there really is no sense in ever trying to convince a christian that there is no God because they never had solid proof that there was one in the first place so there is no evidence to disprove. it all boils down to faith, and if you can shake ones faith then it really wasn't faith anyway.
daniel allen johnson <starecords@aol.com>
byram, ms USA - Friday, June 20, 1997 at 01:46:57 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
What do you mean when you use the word "faith"? Do you mean belief based on inconclusive evidence, belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence? It's difficult to respond to your message without knowing more about how you define your terms.
I will say this, however. I am only willing to believe that which I think is true, and I do not have any good reasons for believing Christianity is true. Do you have any reasons why I should believe Christianity is true? If not, why should I be a Christian?
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
In a message that I found on one of the Internet Infidels feedback pages, a person asked for an explanation of evil in a world without the Christian God; in response, I want to ask: how do you explain evil in a world with the God of Christianity? The origin of evil has been an unanswered question of mine for some time(longer than I would have liked it to be), and some discussion of the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Any responses from those familiar with the Christian faith and its doctrines would be welcomed. Thank you.
Mike Banks <fremd@hotmail.com>
Fremont, CA USA - Thursday, June 19, 1997 at 23:34:46 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/atheism.html
I would like any info you have to help refute the Xtian argument I call
"Die For A Lie?". You know the spiel- the Apostles all died for
their belief in the resurrection, which they never would have done had
they known the res. claim to be false.
I especially need documentation from the early church fathers talking about
the deaths of the Apostles, and the (un)reliability of those same references.
Have already checked "Foxes Book of Martyrs" and "Schaff's
Church History" and several other books.
Mark Smith <JCnot4me@aol.com>
Anaheim, CA USA - Thursday, June 19, 1997 at 22:19:41 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
Dear Mr. Vuletic,
I've been enjoying the feedback others have sent you and Mr. Lowder,
and watched with interest your responses. Regarding one message sent by
John McClendon on April 21, 1997, you mention that your life has been "made
better by embracing a nontheistic worldview." You mention that as
a Christian, you were tormented by the knowledge (or in retrospect, notion)
that a person might suffer eternal torture at the hands of your God. You
mention that you can't understand how anyone can think of Christianity
as meaningful and/or rich when it entails such "moral horrors."
I appreciate the passion and and the revulsion behind those thoughts, but
I can't help but wonder where they come from. In order to declare something
as morally horrific, musn't one have determined that there is another standard
which makes this so? Without necessarily disagreeing with you, may I ask
what leads you to declare something a moral horror? It certainly can't
be because it represents an inner contradiction with a Judeo-Christian
ethic, for that would be a contradictory position to take. Nor can it simply
be because you inherited a sense of morality (for better or worse) from
your parents or society, for that is nothing more than an easy out. Please
accept these questions as friendly and not hostile. I enjoy very much the
opportunity to interact with the Internet Infidels, and I find your on-line
interactions interesting and thought-provoking. Thanks.
Tom Patterson <sirrapc@nccn.net>
Nevada City, CA USA - Thursday, June 19, 1997 at 11:50:24 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Thank you for your friendly and thoughtful letter. It is very timely, since I have just written a paper on the subject of the foundations of morals and its relation to theism (Against the Moral Argument), which I think you might find interesting. I would enjoy receiving feedback from you on that paper.
So, anyways, what leads me to declare something a moral horror? When I make moral judgements, I rely upon my intuitions about right and wrong. Now these intuitions are probably at least inherited, built up in me by evolutionary history, the influence of my parents and society, and all that. You say this is an easy way out, but I'm not sure why - does it have anything to do with the fact that it entails moral relativism? If so, that's an issue I take up in my paper - I'm not sure what extra mileage (over relativism) one is supposed to get out of absolutism.
Now perhaps there is more to my moral sense than just inheritance and conditioning, even though I personally don't believe I can detect that "more" just by introspecting my moral sense. But if there is some extra something that allows my (or anyone's) moral sense to reflect some absolute truth in the universe, the nature of this "something" is utterly mysterious on any picture, whether theistic or nontheistic - as, once again, I try to demonstrate in my paper. Although I don't think (at this point) that naturalists could even begin to explain what this extra something could be, positing the existence of God really doesn't provide an explanation either.
So in conclusion, all I can give you is the "easy" answer. If there is more to morality than that, then it is shrouded in mystery, and a problem for both of us.
P.S. I think it should be sufficiently obvious, wherever my moral standards have come from, that they have not come from the Judeo-Christian God, since His actions contradict my moral sense.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I am interested that you claim to be about 'free thinking'. As a Mason,
I can tell you that much of the Enlightenment was driven by Masons, and
many of history's great free thinkers were Masons.
Freemasonry at its most basic level requires belief in a Creator, and an
Afterlife (although not in many European Observances), although it is deliberately
non-religious, and encourages research into any and all topics. It is not
clear if belief in the Laws of Physics constitute sufficiency for acceptance
(i.e., are 'adequate' as a Creator). It is also not clear whether Oblivion
is an 'adequate' afterlife. No-one is allowed to ask what your version
of the 'Creator' and 'afterlife' are.
It strikes me as perhaps inconsistent that opprobrium (although only implicit)
should be put forward by your organisation on the basis of belief (credulity)
per se. Much of the (well researched) stuff concerning Christianity is
well known to Masons, and Masons are responsible for much of it escpecially
as it relates to Catholicism - there is some acrimony between the two (only
going back four hundred years). I find your material a great source of
grist for my argumentative mill with Christians I know (I am not a member
of an organised religion, myself - something to do with the Laws of Physics),
but I think it's a little 'undergraduate cool' to be anit-belief per se.
Geoffrey Transom <Geoffrey.Transom@BusEco.Monash.edu.au>
Clayton, VIC Australia - Thursday, June 19, 1997 at 03:21:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/precepts.html
Hey guy, anyone can rattle off Scripture, but it's the CONTEXT you have to take in consideration...If we took the Bible "literally" and out of context, we'd all be screwed. The Bible is written figuratively AND literally!!!
Michael Lawrence <Blur69@aol.com>
Bakersfield, CA USA - Wednesday, June 18, 1997 at 21:12:38 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I'm not Don Morgan and I don't speak for him, but you might consider the following idea: perhaps it is you who has taken things out of context.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
Those scriptures are most certainly in the Bible....but what's your point?
Sue Bates <Inasmuch@mailbox.ro>
Bucharest, 4 Romania - Wednesday, June 18, 1997 at 16:11:58 (MDT)
JJL: I was rather surprised to find under the FAQ for Discussion, a
number of restrictions on what language would be acceptable. What purpose
could be served by numbing expression in this way? Do you intend this to
suggest that 'gentlemanly discussion' (i.e., pointless verbiage) is allowed,
but nothing too vital? Sounds like it. I see you bar 'profanity'. Perhaps
you intended to say Obscenity or Vulgarity or Scatology. The idea of barring
Profanity on a non-theist site is laughable, indicating at a minimum that
the user of that word had no idea of its meaning. The profane is etymologically
whatever is not sacred. You actually say, then, you will accept nothing
other than scripture/prophecy on this non-theist site. I see, too, that
you will tattle to the writer's provider if he or she offends. Heavens,
I haven't seen that kind of childish threat since 2d or 3d grade, when
impotent children threatened to tell 'Teacher'. You do not look mature,
thoughtful, or competent when you engage in this sort of censorship
v censorship. I hope you will accept this as the constructive criticism
it is intended to be. Atheists and other non-theists are among the most
literate and rational beings on the planet, and certainly do not need a
person of inspissated ignorance to manage a site purporting to be atheistic.
Please correct the juvenility and treat your readers as the mature thinkers
I expect most of them are. You will attract a more vigorous dialogue if
you do.
David L. Kent <domville@hotmail.com>
Austin, TX USA - Wednesday, June 18, 1997 at 14:57:46 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
I read your interesting article on prophecy and it brought a twinkle to
my eye. Ye of little faith. (wink)
Before I digress, I have to comment on your delightful logo, the fish with
legs. In Egyptian hierogliphs, a fish with legs means 'to run.' In Greek,
theos means 'God' - it also means 'to run.' Your little wrench is even
better...but no long commentaries. The fish has 'eyes', Mr. Lowler - for
a reason.
Ah, but back to 'prophecy.' If I may be gentle, in my reproach, both you
and fundamentalists are essentially in the same 'boat'. Rather leaky, I
might add - one is bailing it out, the other bailing it in. The entire
Bible is encrypted, and once you understand the code, it is quite readable.
You know, the Templars, at least in the top echelons, were not Christians.
Isis and Jesus both are spelled the same in some languages, and both mean
'Salvation.' Great 'cover', wouldn't you say? Yet the Templars were fanatic
in 'defending Christianity.' Think about it...it has nothing to do with
the Church annihilating them...that came later.
If you want fun with prophecy (I am hardly a prophet), Clinton is the 42nd
President. 42 is a prophetic number for 'the end of time.' Clint in Old
English means 'to bring to an end.' Now just by saying those two little
things - that 'prophecy encoded' will never come true - because the 'walls
have ears' - and they hate meddling women. Even one with a sense of humor.
You probably won't, but I challenge, I dare you to write to me. Seeking
Truth is a queer occupation, Mr. Lowler.... I have found that men believe
what we want to believe - whether Christian, other religions - or none
at all.
Oh, by the way, Marieann is the name of the personification of Masonry,
which is supposedly tied to the Templars. Marieann was also the name of
Liberty during the French Revolution. There is an old saying in the Bible,
in the Book of John...'the Truth shall set you free.' You see, Mr. Lowler,
some things do come true - maybe.
The Book of John was rather sacred to Masonry. Sometimes we wonder, don't
we? It is a good thing not to believe superstitions, my friend, my little
fish with legs. Run, run.....Truth is the last thing men want.
I give you a rose...but they do have thorns.
MarieAnn <n0qbc@msn.com>
Colorado Springs, Co. USA - Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 03:51:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
You are so off base. anyone can misconstrue the Bible. The time will
come when you
will face the lord and you will repent. This does not anger me but saddens
me.
best of luck!?
G. Terry <Gonsm4@aol.com>
USA - Monday, June 16, 1997 at 23:51:22 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html
I would like to respond to Niclas Berggren's article, Does the Free-Will
Defense Constitute a Sound Theodicy?
Essentially, Berggren is guilty of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
He sets up what is basically the Roman view of "Original Sin"
(inherited by most Protestant sects) and knocks it down. And rightly so,
in my opinion. However, in his paper he fails to explore other possibilities
which could open the door to acceptance of the view that mankind, and not
God, is directly responsible for the evil that we experience. (I would
like to say that my purpose in this reply is not to "take sides"
in the overall atheism vs theism debate.)
I quote the essence of Berggren's argument:
"Let us, for the sake of argument, grant the Christian that Adam and
Eve did have a genuine free choice and that they chose to sin. As a result,
the evil which directly came about was a result of a choice which was made
by morally autonomous beings. From the argument that God valued moral autonomy
highly enough for him to accept its evil consequences, it follows that
the evils which directly emerged as a result of what Adam and Eve did were
justified. That is, God set up a wager for the two humans: either obey
me and live in perfect harmony or disobey me and bring about disharmony.
Whatever one may think about such an ultimatum, it is possible to hold
that the circumstances in which it was put forth were such as to pose a
real and neutral opportunity for choice."
So far so good. Berggren acknowedges that for "Adam and Eve",
it was essentially a fair deal since they had a "real and neutral
opportunity for choice." In other words, whatever evil *they* might
experienced due to "eating the fruit" would be directly derivative
of their own choice.
Berggren goes on to say:
"However, the reason why God is responsible and blameworthy for much
of the moral evil which has emerged after Adam and Eve is found in the
doctrine of original sin. As we have seen, this doctrine holds that all
subsequent human beings did not face a neutral choice, like Adam and Eve,
but that they instead were born with a sinful nature which forced them
to commit sin. This is what the Bible [10] says on the matter:"
The writer then goes on the quote various things from the Bible showing
how all humans are linked to Adam's sin, etc. I don't accept the Roman
view of Original Sin. Berggren and I agree on that score. I don't believe
an objective perusal of the texts that Berggren cite establishes the doctrine.
(Though no doubt some would disagree.) At any rate, what Berggren doesn't
explore is that possibility that the doctrine of Original Sin as promugated
by the Roman Church (and most of Protestantism) may be wrong without the
Bible being wrong. (Whether the latter is true is not within the scope
of this reply.) He simply equates that the Bible teachings to be Roman
teachings and then goes from there. But there are other possibilities.
(In all fairness, the Roman Church has been around for about 1700 years
and it is reasonable for many people to equate Roman Catholicism with Christianity.
But philosophically, this is irrelevant.)
Since Berggren obviously considers the Roman Catholic doctrince to be false,
then it is no stretch, for the sake of argument, to assume the Biblical
view of evil as true while at the same time regarding the Roman view as
false. So let's assume for the moment this is possible.
As we have seen above, the writer acknowledged if such persons as Adam
and Eve existed the way the Bible states, then they had a fair deal. God
gave them free will, and a choice. They chose wrong and suffered the consequences.
They are to blame in that event, not God. On that Berggren and I agree.
Now, what if the story in Genesis is an allegory? What if "Adam and
Eve" stand for a reality greater than the prima facie understanding
that is commonly taught and accepted?
Let me lay my cards on the table. I hold a particular view of "Adam
and Eve" that is a bit unusual compared to the Roman-derived orthodoxy.
I believe that the Genesis story is an allegory. Pure and simple. God didn't
really make Eve from the rib of Adam, snakes don't really talk, and God
didn't care about the eating of literal fruits on literal trees. (Considering
some of the loony explanations of these things given by fundamentalists,
no wonder many rational people balk at the Bible.) I believe that every
person preexisted their current natural life. (I am not a Mormon, and what
I am about to describe is not reincarnation, per se.) I believe that the
entire human race, you and I, and every other person, was created, and
existed at the same time, in "Eden." Collectively, we were the
"Eve"spoken of in Genesis. At present we have amnesia, we have
become blinded to our past. But we were there and we made the choice to
be thus blinded, and to exist in our current situation.
If all of us preexisted, and were given a choice, and all of us, as completely
free moral agents with regard to the choice we faced, chose the way that
led to our current mess, then God would not be culpable, as the Berggren
correctly acknowledged. Rather, it would be all our own fault.
My purpose here is not to argue about whether the Bible is true or false,
and all that. Or to persuade anyone to my view of the human race being
"Eve." Whether my views of "Eve"are true or not, is
beside the point here. The point is, while Berggren's argument is useful
with respect to Romanism and its derivations, it does not ultimately dispense
with the view that implicates human free-will as the direct moral starting
point for the evil we experience. There are many possibilities. The possibility
that I have presented here harmonizes the ideas that all humans (at one
time) had complete moral responsibility, faced a choice, rebelled, and
are suffering the consequences of the rebellion, while at the same time
God remains completely fair and above moral culpability. We chose it. We
got it. As Jimmy Buffet says, "it's my own damn fault."
Mike Wagner <firehouse@iquest.net>
USA - Monday, June 16, 1997 at 15:20:33 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html
When I have more time I will address each of your findings. As for now,
after
glancing through the items, I would just like to say:
ALL IS NOT LITERAL.
If we are not required to seek GOD, ff we are not given the power of choice,
and if we are not saved by grace through faith, then HE would just appear
before us. Although you don't understand it does not mean you are stupid,
it
just means others have found something you haven't.
The BIBLE does not prove there is a GOD. It only asked you to believe there
is through the stories of those who have experienced HIM. HE is there but
you
do have to seek HIM and HE will reveal HIMSELF to you.
Kerry <cochrank@mont.disa.mil>
Montgomery, AL USA - Monday, June 16, 1997 at 15:00:11 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/april.html
Hi, just wanted to pose a question that occured to me,
One of main tenents of (modern) chirstianity is the immortal soul, life
after death, go to heaven/hell etc. Ok.
Chirstianity doesn't support the idea of re-incarnation, so your sould
doesn't go around for another try. Ok.
This means that mean you are born, you have a "new" soul right?
There was nothing before, at all.
In other words, a christian can accept nothing before life,
why then is there so much difficulty comprehending nothing after death?
You can post this if you want, but I'm really more interested in getting
another perspective on this from you guys, as I haven't seen it considered
in anything I've read so far, mostly I'm just curious.
PS: The site is great! Certainly the best on the net, without a doubt.
Philip Langdale <rogergl@singnet.com.sg>
Singapore - Monday, June 16, 1997 at 05:20:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/
I am an Objectivist and of coarse an atheist.I wish to ask if you guys
would consider adding the follo wing books to your book list.
The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind
By Julian Jaynes
Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand
By Leonard Peikoff
Also The Neo-Tech/ZonPower Discovery and it's Neo-Tech 2 Reference Encyclopedia
By Frank Wallace at Neo-Tech Publishing or neo-tech.com
These books I believe to be the best at cleaning mysticism and superstition
from a person's mind.
Thanks, Larry Wise
Larry Allen Wise <n5u7y7rm@coastalnet.com>
Rocky Mount, NC USA - Sunday, June 15, 1997 at 16:28:33 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/rrr/cc/
It seems somewhat strange to me that more hasn't been said about so-called
religious training actually being child abuse.
People everywhere are outraged when children are sexually molested or otherwise
exploited, forced to work for next to nothing in Third World countries,
or when they're subjected to any other kind of abuse -excluding the religious
variety- but I rarely he ar a complaint about children being tortured with
religion. Apparently being a parent gives one the right to mutilate a child's
spirit, even though it's no longer legal in most countries to do the same
thing with their genitals.
Worse off still are the children who are adopted out to families of the
very worst religious crackpot persuasions -- Jehovah's Witnesses, Assemblies
of God, and even worse. It's not bad enough, apparently, that these morons
pollute the Earth with their o wn hoards of brainwashed offspring -- they
have to contaminate others as well.
Boy, this really pisses me off.
Tony Enos <TonyEinSF@SprintMail.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Saturday, June 14, 1997 at 23:29:42 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/email.html
One of your revenue generating ideas was to offer email accounts but I was wondering if you ha ve ever considered selling web space? I have encountered problems with my web provider (as have many people) and sometimes one wonders if it is not the bad service but perhaps sysop's that objects to the web page content. If you start such a service (or had one now) I would love to spend the money I pay for web space to support your organization. Please let me know if you or any other freethought/atheist groups have web space for sale. Thanks.
Dan Wilcox <dwilcox@efn.org>
Eugene, OR USA - Saturday, June 14, 1997 at 19:31:26 (MDT)
It is interesting that you use a quote from a man who died before all of the claims of the school of
CEB <cserb@msn.com>
USA - Saturday, June 14, 1997 at 19:03:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
Hi! I don't know on what basis you thrash Jesus the Christ, whether
y ou are "dissapointed" with Christianity or whether it's your
way of expressing the First Amendment of the US Constitution but this is
ridiculous. Luckily enough for you guys, you live in a country where you
it's OK to have art that include pictures of so meone pissing or peeing
on a cross with Jesus on it or to have a picture of Jesus with a pig's
head rather than Jesus face. Imagine if you live in a country like Algeria
or Iran or Afghanistan where the cut your right hand if you steal!
Show a bit of respect for the beliefs of others. This thing about Jesus
being a myth or calling Him a hypocrit is VERY offensive to the millions
of those who believe and worship Him. There's absolutely no sense in what
you are doing. Why waste your time on blashpeming against God? Don't you
have anything better to do with your free time. C'mon guys, stop the nonsense
and make the most of your time in a more positive way rather than blashpheming
against your Creator and the One who grants you forgivenes s. For the love
of God, stop what you are doing. Thanks.
Jean Chretien <alouati@chat.carleton.ca>
Ottawa, ON Canada - Friday, June 13, 1997 at 15:27:41 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Dear Jean,
I am indeed lucky and privileged to live in a free society where even unpopular opinions may be expressed. And my efforts are aimed at furthering the cause of bold and independent thinking. Of course I do not see myself as blaspheming my creator, etc., since I do not accept the belief that I have a divine creator. I do not think of my efforts as aimed at blaspheming my savior, because I do not believe there is such a savior. Your appeal for me to stop being naughty in these ways simply begs the question, as in the old gag, "Hey, Bill! Have you stopped beating your wife?" Was Bill beating Mrs. Bill in the first place? And is there a God for me to be blaspheming? That is the very point at issue. And if there is a God, I would think he is not so thin-skinned and ornery as to condemn me for trying to ask genuine questions and to get people to examine their faith.
Did I call Jesus a hypocrite? I think not. My point was rather to indicate several senses in which the figure of Jesus Christ is some sort of a figment. First, he may have originated as a mythic deity like Mithras, Attis, Asclepius, and many other similar figures.
Second, even if Jesus really did exist as some sort of historical figure beneath the many legends and inauthentic sayings (i.e., later attributed to him by others, however sterling their moral quality as sayings), the historian's reconstruction (such as one finds in books by Horsley, Crossan, Borg, and others) remains a fiction, the hypothesis of the historian that can never be verified.
Third, the personal savior of pious subjectivity is a case of projection, an imaginary play-mate, when it is not merely a piece of shorthand referring to devotional prayer and bible reading.
Fourth, "Jesus" has become a banner standing for a number of debateable and extraneous questions, and it becomes an excuse for Christians not to deal with those questions. Politicians wrap themselves in the American flag, so that if you criticize Bush's or Clinton's policy, they accuse you of being unpatriotic. In the same way, Christians say you are against Jesus or Christ when you oppose their political views, their theological opinions, their interpretations of the bible. In fact, your letter appears to me to be a prime illustration of the very tendencies I am talking about.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
What was your point in padding the Infidel's site with drivel from Rev Ralph Smith ("Bertrand Russell Was Not a Christian")? If I want to read Christian apologetics, I can get it easily from thousands of web sites. I came here to read the opinions of atheists and agnostics, not flaming Christians. Please live up to the intents and purposes of the Internet Infidels area. It would be better if the Revere nd's sermon were deleted, not because censorship is desired, but because it is inappropriate here.
John Nernoff <kocatris@redrose.net>
USA - Friday, June 13, 1997 at 05:15:15 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
>What was your point in padding the Infidel's site with drivel
>from Rev Ralph Smith ("Bertrand Russell Was Not a Christian")?
Internet Infidels' policy has ALWAYS been to link to documents written SPECIFICALLY in response to a document on our site. The link was added from the Bertrand Russell author page and announced on the "What's New?" page.
>If I want to read Christian apologetics, I can get it easily
>from thousands of web sites. I came here to read the opinions of
>atheists and agnostics, not flaming Christians.
Really? Then I suppose you think Internet Infidels should also delete all of the debate transcripts also, because debates give the other side a chance to give their point of view.
Yes, there are thousands of Christian apologetics web sites. But Rev Smith's essay is the only essay (we are aware of) written specifically in response to Russell's essay.
>Please live up to the intents and purposes of the Internet Infidels area.
We are living up to it. I am very sorry you feel that the Secular Web should be as dogmatic as Christian web sites and not link to opposing points of view.
>It would be better if the Revere nd's sermon were deleted, not
>because ;censorship is desired, but because it is
>inappropriate here.
Internet Infidels determine what is appropriate, not you. We consider it appropriate because the document was written specifically in response to "Why I Am Not a Christian." Part of being committed to truth entails linking to rebuttals of our material.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/jesus_report_card.html
I think Jesus should've gotten a C in health. Yes, he was good in first aid, but he kept insisting his mother was a virgin!
Jessie <SnowWhite9@aol.com>
New Brighton, MN USA - Thursday, June 12, 1997 at 03:24:22 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/rrr.html
Fundamentalism
by James Barr
Published by Trinity Pr Intl
Publication date: December 1981
ISBN: 0334005035
Listed by Amazom.com as "hard to find."
This is one of the books that truly changed my life. There must have been
an earlier edition, as I remember reading this about 1978.
It's a social analysis of the movement, and insight on how fundamentalism
works. Here, of course, we strictly mean Christian, mainly American fundamentalism.
Speakers and books are evaluated by fundamentalists by their "soundness."
That is, a Christian who does not strictly adhere to the dearly held standard
of the particular group is deemed "unsound." Thus, they rarely
hear any dissenting opinions .. It's the home on the range scenario. You
know, where seldom is heard a discouraging word...
Larry A. Taylor <ltaylor@primenet.com>
Baltimore, CA USA - Wednesday, June 11, 1997 at 19:24:17 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/rrr.html
Book to add to your list.
"The New Subversives..." by Daniel Maguire who is a professor
at
Marquette University. However, I think the book is out of
print.
George Losby <glosby@oal.com>
Eau Claire, WI USA - Wednesday, June 11, 1997 at 12:46:39 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/
I would like to see a category added directly to this page, on 'The
Bible.'
Failing that, I would like to see a 'Bible' page under 'Christianity.'
As I previously suggested, Tim Callahan's new book, "Prophecy -- Failure
or
Fulfillment," could go here. Also, hot stuff:
The Supernatural, the Occult, and the Bible
by Gerald A. Larue
Hardcover, 303 pages
Published by Prometheus Books
Publication date: November 1990
Dimensions (in inches): 9.33 x 6.30 x 1.17
ISBN: 0879756152
Sex and the Bible
by Gerald Larue
Hardcover, 173 pages
Published by Prometheus Books
Publication date: May 1,1983
Dimensions (in inches): 9.32 x 6.25 x .75
ISBN: 0879752068
List: $28.95 ~ Our Price: $20.27 ~ You Save: $8.68 (30%)
Availability: This item usually shipped within 2-3 days.
LAT
reply to ltaylor@primenet.com
Larry A. Taylor <ltaylor@primenet.com>
Baltimore, MD USA - Tuesday, June 10, 1997 at 16:56:05 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/corey_washington/craig-washington/
I wish I'd gotton a degree, but I enjoyed the Craig/ Washington debate non the less. I'm just a city boy (51) and yeah...I believe in Jesus.My counter to the godless evolutionists theory is that it expects us to believe the following: If I went down to the AutoZone folks and purchased separately all the parts necessary to build a 1957 Chevrolet, and threw them all into a big container and began to shake the thing , that given enough time I could reasonably expect a point (even if it took 10 million years) when I could climb into the container and fine not only a completely assembled Chevy but the keys in the ignition and the motor RUNNING.
Ya better think twice about CHRIST.
Charles W. Burwell III <anart@pop3.wt.net>
Houston, tx USA - Monday, June 09, 1997 at 22:40:43 (MDT)
Interent Infidels Response:
I hope I'll be forgive for quoting from one of my own documents (Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism) in response:
Chemicals and biomolecules function much differently in the presence of energy than do pieces of scrap metal in a junkyard. Many atoms and molecules spontaneously and non-randomly join together to form larger molecules, especially in the presence of added energy. At high temperatures, mixtures of amino acid monomers spontaneously polymerize and form primitive cell-like structures called protocells, the microfossil remains of which may have been found in Precambrian rock (Fox, 1989).
Many important biochemicals including amino acids and nucleotides have been produced in experiments and found on meteoritic material. Spectroscopic data even reveals the existence of organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds; concerning these chemicals, Martin Olomucki notes that
...in many of the organic interstellar molecules we find compounds which are precursors of biological molecules: hydrogen cyanide, which can generate amino acids and nucleic bases; formaldehyde, the precursor of sugars; cyanoacetylene, an important condensation agent, etc. These molecules are able to form even under extreme conditions of temperature and high concentration of interstellar media. Apparently ubiquitous in the Universe, they must certainly have existed on the surface of the primitive Earth, as well as on other planets: traces of amino acids, which are already more complex chemicals, have been identified in lunar dust and meteorites. (Olomucki, 1993,47; see also Miller, 1992, 17-20).
Research has yielded a host of autocatalytic molecules, some of which present characteristics like imperfect replication (no one wants perfect replication from reproducing molecules - otherwise diversity could not be generated) and even recombination (Rebek, 1994).
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I bought the book you all have been advertising: James Dobson's War
on America. I suppose it was true and all th at, but it was b o r i
n g.
Sorry, i wanted to like it.
don sanders <dsand999@aol.com>
baytonw, tx USA - Monday, June 09, 1997 at 19:09:24 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/church-state/vouchers/orgs-vouchers.html
NAACP has come out against vouchers.
The teachers, NEA and AFT, are strongly against them.
Some of the better advocacy groups:
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Curch and State.
People for the American Way.
Larry A. Taylor <ltaylor@primenet.com>
Baltimore, USA - Monday, June 09, 1997 at 17:41:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/
2nd attempt: Have to wonder if I'm being watched or is there really
someone up there? Naw. After sending my 1st e-mail I found myself cut off
line. Perhaps it is just one of those strange coinsidences. So, as I was
saying: Just a note to say hello to any of my like minded infidels. I am
ready to stand up and be counted. Sick and tired of being subjected to
other peoples moral standards and expectations. Having trouble enough living
up to my own. No soap box today. But, if you want to get me started - PACK
A LUNCH.
William Carl Damerell <damerell@lgcy.com>
Salt Lake City, UT USA - Sunday, June 08, 1997 at 15:09:06 (MDT)
Is there a way to use reverse threading--some think it awkward but many
are used to it and find it makes more sense?
Bob <rfranks@indy.net>
USA - Sunday, June 08, 1997 at 12:09:13 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/
I absolutely love this humor site. I hope you guys keep it coming, and
I'm sure you will because there will never be a shortage of material; especially
if you branch out and take on the REALLY funny stuff like Focus on the
Family. How about the John Birchers? Has anybody thought about taking on
the John Birchers? If I had any creativity in me I'd do it, but I probably
couldn't do it as well as you guys could. Good luck and let's hope that
we can keep free speech alive and kicking in the 21st century. (with restrictions,
of course)
Susan Kudlawiec
USA - Saturday, June 07, 1997 at 20:59:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Sir, I pray that God will open your eyes to the glorious Gospel of my
Lord Jesus Christ. You may think tha t you have made a damaging blow to
Christian thought but
"There is a way that seems right to a man,
bit in the end it leads to death"
Proverbs 14:12
You may stay as secular as you want to, the choice is certainly yours.
But always keep in mind 1 thing.
If I am right in believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God the attonement
for my sin, and that He is the only way to God, then I have lost nothing
if it isn't true. But if it is true, you my brother have lost everything.
Because:
"I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me."
John 14:6
I will keep you in my prayers.
Mark Ennis <DavidREnnis>
Tampa, FL USA - Friday, June 06, 1997 at 15:43:09 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Are you really asking us to believe in your god on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis? Is that why you believe - because you think it will maxmize your probable pay-off? That's a very shallow reason for believing in any god - and not one any god would be liable to appreciate. Perhaps you had better factor that into your calculations of what you stand to lose.
As for me and my fellow Infidels, we would rather have an honest belief in a god, based upon evidence, than upon some shallow attempt to maximize our gains over the long run. And since no evidence for the existence of god is forthcoming, the honest thing to do is not to believe at all.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/humanist.html
Mr. Price does much to dismiss the notion that atheists, humanists a nd the like are without a sense discovery about the world around them. I find it comforting personally that rationally thinking individuals are drawn to this worldview despite the lack of pat answers. I too feel that much of the meaning we can deduce from life comes expressly from the type and quality of questions we ask. Mr. Price is a welcome addition to a tradition of inquiry that values introspection and reasoning in a forum that refuses to defer to someone's cherished "revealed knowledge". I look for ward to more enlightening articles from Mr. Price. He is truly a light in the darkness.
William Buttrey <buttrey@mizar.usc.edu>
Monrovia, CA USA - Friday, June 06, 1997 at 13:08:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I would like to run a problem I'm having with the city of Maidson by
someone in the know about these things. About 2 years ago the parking was
restricted on Maywood st on Madison's east side in the 400 block. This
was done so that the fire department could get emergency vehicles in. When
it was pointed out that all the streets in the neighborhood had this problem/need
the games began. It is apparent to the re sidents that this restriction
is used to facilitate parking for the Methodist church at the end of the
400 block. This restriction is for one side of the street from 7:00 AM
to 1:00 PM each Sunday. All the residents of the 400 block signed a petition
aski ng for the removal of this restriction. The city won't budge. I contacted
our alderperson. Dorthory Borchardt, and got know where. She just happens
to be a member of that church. I contacted the Mayor's office and got know
where. I have pointed out to the city that this restriction should be applied
to the whole neighborhood without exception or removed. They keep saying
that emergency vehicles need access.Why only Sunday when there are activities
at the adjacent church every day of the week. Its balderdash, its for the
church's benefit on parking.
I would really like some help on this if possible. I have tried every arguement
I can think of with the city but they refuse to view this for what it is.
Any way if any one has some thoughts/advice I would sure like to hear it.
Thanks
Dennis de Garmo <degarde@mail.state.wi.us>
madison, wi USA - Friday, June 06, 1997 at 06:55:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/book-of-the-month/1997.html#june
Every one has a right to their opinion s, even if their wrong ! Free
Thinker, may God have mercy on you as you stand before HIM when you are
judged! I would rather be wrong that God exists, then to spend the rest
of eternity in Hell. If your really a Free Thinker,think about this! Let's
remember,Evolution is a theory and not a fact! You may believe CREATION
is not a fact,but look around you! Have you ever seen a fossil that was
half fish, half mammal? I don't think so!Have you ever s een organization
come from an explosion,(ie: Big Bang theory), not likely. A table needed
to be designed, it didn't transform into a table after millions of years.
The same goes with life ! Free Thinkers think about a simple thing like
your eye. Evolution must have sure been creative to evolve cones, rods,
lenses, nerve endings that create a image transmitted to the brain in such
a way for us to see! Duh, wake up Free Thinker! Why take your chances Free
Thinker? If I'm wrong what's the worst that can happen to me,I rot in the
ground ? I won't know and I won't care? If I'm right and I go to be with
my Creator I will be in a place that I can't even imagine. The bible tells
me I will be in paradise for eternity, sounds good to me. All I have to
do is have faith that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and accept him into
my heart and life. Free Thinker, God gave you a free will. Free Thinker,do
as you must,but remember this letter will always be in the back of your
mind. The day you die you'll find out if your right or not. Sort of like
playing the lotto isn't it?
Andrew Turnerd <turnerd@juno.com>
Buffalo, NY USA - Thursday, June 05, 1997 at 18:41:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
Your page is great!!! I loved the piece written by Quienten Smith on proving Atheism. Keep up the great work!!!
Joel Beebe <Agogwe@aol.com>
Dearborn Heights, MI USA - Thursday, June 05, 1997 at 17:00:37 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/store.html
Hope this one can make your Humor site.
Peter/Simon stands on a hill not far from J.C. who is hanging on the cross. Peter is feeling terrible and very guilty for rejecting JC thrice. All of a sudden he hears a weak voice cry out"Peter, Peter". Looking up , he see's its the voice of JC, he starts toward the cross when 3 Roman soldiers stop him and say, take one more step and you shall know our swords. Peter quickly steps back. Minutes later he hears his master's voice cry out "Peter.. Simon" , this time undaunte he starts for the cross, and says to himself"to hell with those Bastard Romans, i am going up to him anyway! Sure enough, the soldiers intercept him about a hundred yards from the cross. This time they stab him and beat him to a bloody pulp. After a bout 5 minutes of this bloody assault on his flesh, they let him go, saying if he is brave enough to accept our beating let him go to his almost dead master. Peter /Simon crawls in agony the rest of the way. Finally after about 15 minutes of crawling and half walking, he makes it to the foot of the cross. He looks up at the horrible sight of JC,just hanging there and he here's jesus say "Simon i can see you mothers house from up here.
Harry Koplo <Hkdolfan@aol.com>
N.Y.C., NY USA - Wednesday, June 04, 1997 at 14:45:43 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html
I copied the text below directly from the word _of_god_debate.html document.
The reference to Exodus 33:20 is correct but the reference to Exodus 33:20
is totaly wrong. The text stated is actually found in Exodus 33:11. Verse
22 talks about God taking His hand away...but my face you can't see...
Nice try.
Additionally, in verse 11 'face to face' indicates a 'familiar manner'.
Taken out of context anything in any book anywhere can be made to seem
contradictory. In the end we'll all call Jesus, Lord. Willingly or not.
Have a nice day!
**************************************************************************
As I read the Bible, it does appear that God's word cannot be relied upon
as in this, apparent, contradiction:
Exodus 33: verse 20, God is said to have said: "Thou canst not see
my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
Exodus 33: verse 22 reads: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to
face, as a man speakest unto his friend."
That seems like a self-contradiction to me, but as I have said, the Bible
is obviously incomprehensible, and you may not see anything strange about
the two statements at all. I could spend the rest of the evening giving
contradictions that are to be found in the Old Testament, so I must skip
over the rest.
Jeff Holmes <Jeffrey.Holmes@seag.fingerhut.com>
Plymouth, MN USA - Wednesday, June 04, 1997 at 14:42:50 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/christianity/
IF THE BIBLE IS SO FULL OF UNTRUTHS AND JESUS WAS ONLY IN THE MINDS
OF I TS WRITERS, THEN ANSWER ME THIS.
IS IT NOT A FACT THAT THE FURTHER WE" AS A NATION" GET AWAY FROM
THE CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE THE MORE MURDERS AND RAPEST THIS COUNTRY
PRODUCES?
WHEN PRAYER WAS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, THE GUNS WASN'T.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MORAL DECLINE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY GOES HAND IN
HAND WITH THE REMOVEL OF CHRIST AND HIS TEACHINGS FROMS THE LIVES OF OUR
YOUNG ONES.
DO WE KEEP BUILDING BIGGER PRISONS OR DO WE TEACH THEM TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER
AS CHRIST HAS LOVED US?
ROBERT C PARRY <DENASPET@AOL.COM>
CHARLESTON, WV USA - Tuesday, June 03, 1997 at 01:44:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/people/ffp/faq.html
I'm glad to see this kind of website. I put atheist and freethinker articles, especially book reviews on my web site which is the site where you will find my e-mail address. Richard Dawkins books are for adults but very good. I would like to help the cause.
Naomi Sherer <naomi@salmonriver.com>
richland, wa USA - Monday, June 02, 1997 at 15:43:08 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
In response to "Is Atheisism Logical": One may have "very good reasons" to believe against the existence of God, there are far many more reasons in aiding the fact that God does exist. I find it hard to believe that one can believe in a THEORY as unsupportable as the fact that there are little green men on Planet X.
A. Student <knightstown@jr.-sr.highschool>
Knightstown, IN USA - Monday, June 02, 1997 at 09:17:30 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation of Alfred Loisy's statement in "My Duel with the Vatican". It comes across to me that he despises all Christianity because of an experience with the Roman Catholic church. If I am wrong, I appologize, but if I am correct, then I believe a wrong needs to be brought forward. This statement is a form of racism. One can't judge all blacks by an experience, nor all whites from a white racist. If one tries an apple for the first time and the apple is rotten, does that mean all apples are horrible to taste? Of course not! If you have a disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church, then take it up with the priest, o r find a new denomination. You can't write off all Christianity from one bad experience. Again I appologize for any misinterpretation on my part, but if you don't want this type of response from others, then wouldn't you say something needs to change?
A. Student <knightstown@jr.-sr.high>
Knightstown, IN USA - Monday, June 02, 1997 at 08:57:32 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap3.html
Dear Athiests,
I have read only a little of your web page here, your critique on Josh
McDowells book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", however I have
read enough to realize that you are taking a mature, logical, and scholorly
approach in your critique. I do appreciate this. I am a Christian who is
deeply commited to my side of the fence and wish to defend my position
with the same vigor and maturity that it appears you are defending yours
with. But this is not the intent for this letter. I am not writing this
to he ckle or preach, so please do not discard my email.
As a thinking Christian I have always been disappointed with many of my
fellow believers when it comes to the field we call appologetics. I have
noticed that more often than not Christians are unprepared to give logical
defense to back up their faith, an d are therefore, unable to effectively
argue their position intellegently. I often hear my fellow Christians give
pat answers to real questions. "Because the Bible sais so", "You
just have to believe" etc. to name only a couple very simple examples.
But even our scholors, such as Josh McDowell, present bogus arguments at
times. It is appearant to me after reading only a little of your web page
that you have effectively discredited many of his arguments as really proving
nothing.
I would like to pose two questions to you. (When I use the pronoun YOU
in this letter It refers to either the writer of "The verdict is in"
or any other athiest reading it who desires only to engage in mature discussion
on these issues, and is committed to not bashing me as a Christian - I
have labored to do nothing of the sort toward you.) So on to my questions.
#1. You have well debunked Josh McDowells writing as being insufficient.
Are there any Christian apologists whom you deem more worthy than Josh
McDowell, someone perhaps that you consider to be Christendom's best defense.
Is there anybody you would cons ider a worthy debator and whom you respect?
Who more than any other apologist makes you come closest to buying it?
I would be curious to know who this might be, so that I as a Christian
could read his works. Funny I have to ask an athiest who our best apologist
is. As the enemy I ask you - Who is our best General?
#2. If I was to personally write an essay attempting to show convincing
evidence that a particular Chirstian position was true, would you read
it, and critique it honestly and maturely, discounting what you could with
good reason, and also admitting a good argument on my point where and when
such exists? If you would do this, where and who should I send it to?
Thank you for reading my letter here. I am not an educated man, only self
educated. This may be appearant in my spelling and gramatical errors. However,
I consider my intellegence and knowledge worthy of your time. Please do
respond
Nick <RomansVIII@aol.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Monday, June 02, 1997 at 00:16:12 (MDT)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
