 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Note from the II Secretary:
This month's mail is the first to be edited under the new, stricter feedback policy listed on the Secular Web mail form. If you are unaware of the new policy, please read the mail form policy very carefully before sending in new submissions.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/shit_list.html
While you are free to say and think what you wish, you are not free to clutter my mind with yo ur language and ideas. I will not argue with your right to free speech, as it is a freedom granted by the constitution. However, I personally don't appreciate your infringement of your rights upon myself as an internet browser. I choose to browse under christian search titles to avoid the filfth that surrounds the net. Yet, you have chosen to create pages which will appear under these searches and have therefore destroyed my ability to search in what I consider a good environment. I did not read your page but simply scrolled to the end so that I could give you my opinion, since you so freely, without my consent gave me yours. I do not appreciate your use of bad language as well as your ability, without guilt, to trash other people and their ideas. Again, I acknowledge that you are free to think what you will, and I am not sending this to persuade you to believe as I do. I am simply writing to point out that you are criticizing the one thing that you are doing, --being closed minded and small enoug h to attack anything with which you do not agree.
Amy Johnson <vball62@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 10:40:20 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
>I choose to browse under christian search titles to avoid the filfth
>that surrounds the net. Yet, you have chosen to create pages which
>will appear under these searches and have therefore destroyed my
>ability to search in what I consider a good environment.
When you did your search, you got back a list of pages. Most search engines clearly display the URL of the system where the pages were found; even if the search engine you used doesn't do that, on most browsers you can see what URL is under a link before you follow it. So what, pray tell, did you expect from "infidels.org"? It's not like we tried to disguise our site as jesuslovesyou.org.
Furthermore, we try to give our pages descriptive titles, which many search engines display. This should have given you a second clue as to the content of the pages you were about to jump to.
Thirdly, when we create pages which use Christian terms, it is because we wish to discuss those particular concepts. For example, if we mention "Jesus" it's because we are discussing Jesus, not because we want to attract people to a completely irrelevant page.
And finally, most search engines display some of the content of the page, which should also have given you a hint of what it contained.
So, I think you had adequate warning. If for some reason you didn't get any of the warnings above, I suggest that you get a better web browser and find a better search engine.
> I did not
>read your page but simply scrolled to the end so that I could give
you
>my opinion, since you so freely, without my consent gave me yours.
We did not force our pages down your phone line. You consciously chose to request them from our web server; you gave consent for them to be loaded into your browser by clicking on the link.
If you wish to read only the Christian parts of the web, here are some hints:
1. Internet Explorer's rating system allows you to prevent the browser from loading unrated pages. This will stop it from displaying our pages, and will also protect you from innocently stumbling upon pornography.
2. Yahoo list a large number of Christian search engines, which index exclusively Christian content.
3. A number of manufacturers sell Internet content filtering software. You can use this to prevent the display of pages which use bad language or blasphemous terms.
If you choose not to use the filtering technology available to you, that's your problem. You'll find a lot worse than us on the Internet, even if you search for innocent words.
For example, I was looking for companies that sold VCRs which will play both European PAL and American NTSC tapes. Without thinking too hard, I innocently searched for "video and PAL and NTSC", and up popped half a dozen sites selling pornographic video tapes.
>Again, I acknowledge that you are free to think what you will, and
I
>am not sending this to persuade you to believe as I do. I am simply
>writing to point out that you are criticizing the one thing that you
>are doing, --being closed minded and small enough to attack anything
>with which you do not agree.
I do not attack everything I disagree with. I'm actually quite selective.
It's odd that you should mention closed-mindedness. Whatever the faults of the Internet Infidels, it's clear that you are completely unwilling to even consider the merits of what we have written. You are quite clearly closed-minded yourself.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
This wasn't the best weekend ever for me. O n the other hand reading
your efforts has (strangely) made my faith stronger. God bless you.
Expect good things to happen as i'll be praying for you.
Jim Gerstner <JimGerst@ix.netcom.com>
Houston, Tx USA - Sunday, September 28, 1997 at 22:37:49 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
Dearest Over-Confidant ones;
It was dishearting to see you shred well-meaning evangelical youth groups
to pieces after some had recommended "Joshy Mac's" 'Evidence
that Demands a Verdict' to you.
Ya know, I'm so greatful for minds like yours that require only 60 college
credit hours (after the basics of course) to "CONFIRM GOD's NON- EXISTSNCE!"
So how do you explain the "religious traditions" of man since
the beginning of recorded time? A psycological weakness? An accident? Jerry
Falwell? Or maybe even...G O D? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Would ya like to tell me which came first: the RNA, DNA or AMIO-ACID SEQUENCING?
Oh that's right... it all simply and accidently happened...
Well, perhaps you would care to 'intellectualize' with MEN of your own
strenth and wit; men such as Dr. James Kenedy, Dr. R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer,
THOMAS AQUINAS, PLATO, St. Augustine, Newton, and Dr. Norman Geisler
Scott DiVincenzo <joesbar@earthlink.net>
Buffalo, NY USA - Sunday, September 28, 1997 at 21:33:21 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Dear Scott,
I'm sorry you were "disheartened" by our refutation of Josh McDowell. I'm curious, though, why you believe that we should not have responded to Josh McDowell. Do you
You also indicated that our material is too scholarly or too difficult to understand; it "requires only 60 college credits (after the basics of course)". It is true that our web site has many scholarly resources. But the vast majority of our material is not scholarly and does not require 60 or even 10 college credits.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/infidels/
Unbelief is fashionable because it seems to equate to freedom. But freedom from reality is slavery to unreality. God is real, and we exist because He does. why live a lie? It is impossible. Unbelief is a deathwish.
Martin Wishnatsky <goodmorals@hotmail.com>
Fargo, ND USA - Sunday, September 28, 1997 at 20:26:22 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Evidence? Or at least a refutation of the articles in the arguments for atheism section of the Secular Web library?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/fernandes4.html
In his debate with Michael Martin, Phil Fernandes states:
"Any worldview that cannot consistently call the action of torturing
innocent babies absolutely and always wrong is a worldview that should
be rejected."
To which the Bible replies:
HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed
in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
Thank you Internet Infidels for the wonderful work you do!
cynthia rubio <car@inreach.com>
brentwood, ca USA - Sunday, September 28, 1997 at 18:39:03 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
An excellent point - and one which did not escape Michael Martin's attention, either :) See his closing statement.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2front92.html
You guy ought to get Steve Limpke at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary or Norman Geisler at Dallas Theological Seminary to give you a proof of biblical inerrancy. Or are you guys chicken. Maybe you're not as open minded as you let on. Freethinkers? I doubt it! It's pretty easy to knock down a straw-man.
Charles Scott <cdscott@ctelcon.net>
Ft. Worth, TX USA - Friday, September 26, 1997 at 02:53:19 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Mr. Scott needs to do a little investigation to find out just who is chicken when it comes to debating biblical inerrancy. In March 1994, I debated Norman Geisler at Columbus College in Columbus, GA. I have distributed many video copies and printed transcripts of that debate. I have written to Geisler proposing a second debate, which I would like to schedule for the seminary where he is the dean, but he wrote back to me and declined the offer on the grounds that he is too busy. If Scott will send me his address, I will be glad to send him a photocopy of Geisler's rejection of the proposal. Unless Geisler has moved since my last contact with him in 1995, he is the dean of a seminary in Charlotte, NC. I noticed on the letterhead that Geisler used to reject my proposal that Josh McDowell is on the advisory board of the seminary. I wrote back to Geisler and suggested that he ask McDowell to conduct a debate at the seminary in Charlotte, but I received no answer to this letter.
If Scott will send me Steve Limpke's address, I will be happy to send him a debating proposal. However, I have little confidence that Limpke would accept the proposal. I have sent debate proposals to Josh McDowell, but he has responded to them with silence. I also wrote to Gleason Archer and proposed a debate, but he too declined the offer. In this case, the rejection of the proposal came by letter, which I would also be glad to send Scott a copy of.
So just who are the chickens in the matter of biblical inerrancy?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
I want to say a very BIG THANK YOU to Jeffrey Lowder, Farrell Till and
the many writers who are shining the light on the path for us exfundamentalists.
I have read many nasty letters from those frustrated Christians. When they
run out of defenses they become downright mean.
I can't say enough how much I appreciate the effort made by these writers
on
the Secular Web.
Denny Clark <wolf@tcd.net>
USA - Friday, September 19, 1997 at 13:45:00 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html
I read the arguements for atheism based on the existence of evil. Some
of which I was impressed with. However, I still question the strength of
your arguement. I don't think I understand what you call moral evil. For
your position, that would have to be a relative evil in all cases. Your
position would no t ever attach itself to absolutes in matters of morality.
You would not appeal to a moral law that has no distributor. How do you
pose an absolute God against a relative (or subjective) evil? That is false
dichotomy. If your scale for good and evil is "fixed," to what
is it fixed? Is this evil only in terms of phylical pleasure and pain,
isn't that subjective? The way you use 'evil,' it seems that you use Christian
understanding of that word, to negate its God. Because suffering, death,
and destruc tion are "good" for our supposed evolution. Can you
define moral evil, without being subjective, personal or taking a vote?
Thanks for your help,
Rob Colvin
p.s.--I have written you before and recieved a polite response. Thanks
for being patient, I know you get a lot of mail.
Rob Colvin <lestercrow@hotmail.com>
Chattanooga, TN USA - Thursday, September 11, 1997 at 17:41:49 (MDT)
Please consult the Moral Argument and Divine Command Theory section of the Modern Library, especially Mark Vuletic's essay, "Against the Moral Argument".
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/
No comment. Just glad to get this page. Thank you very much.
Doc Phoenix <authority@webtv.net>
Phoenix, PheoAZ USA - Tuesday, September 09, 1997 at 00:04:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/
I just felt I had to add this second comment.
The key question one needs to ask is not whether all of scripture is inerrant.
It may well be that it contains some errors. The key question every human
being needs to ask is whether or not the Christian truth claim is true,
e.g.:
1) Jesus was and is God's Son, and God himself (the mystery of the trinity
will not be understood here in this lifetime, I'm sure). The words of Jesus
are the words of the actual, perfect, holy God.
2) There is a life after this one, and two possible destinations.
3) Jesus, if we believe in Him with a genuine, sincere faith, and surrender
our life to Him, will lead us to the highest (but not the easiest, mind
you) life here, and then to a life of eternal bliss with God.
I was born a reform Jew, but basically after the age of 18 stayed away
from God altogether. I came to believe in Christ in my late 30's, because
I really, really needed to know the truth, for a variety of reasons. And
I read everything; the Christian apologists (Lewis,McDowell, Ravi Zacharias,
many, many others), the liberal so-called theologians (the 'Jesus Seminar'
people, John Dominic-Crossan, etc.).
I personally believe scripture ma y not be inerrant; most so-called errors
raised by skeptics are easily resolved, some are not, and for some I don't
think there's a good explanation. I think (as did C.S. Lewis) that the
Genesis creation account is mythopoetic. And yes, maybe includes two creation
traditions. I think most of the resurrection account discrepancies can
be semi-plausibly resolved, but not all of them. I tend to think Matthew
erred in claiming Jesus rode into Jerusalem on both a donkey and the foal
of a donkey; but could be wrong there.
But all that's irrelevant. If someone you trusted implicitly told you for
sure he/she had seen a bomb, about to go off, in the next room, would you
care if he had every detail right, or would you get the heck out of the
house?
I believe if you study the Christian truth claim as if your very life,
and your soul, depended on it, you will see the question of biblical inerrancy
for what it is; a side-issue. In the Philokalia (writings of the Greek
Orthodox monks, very enlightening), one of the monks writes that Satan
will try to distract you from faith by leading you to focus on difficult
passages of scripture. Your search should be a search with all your heart,soul,
and intellect to determine whether Christ was and is who Christians claim
He is.
Dan Hochberg <nobody@nowhere.com>
Kirkland, WA USA - Wednesday, September 03, 1997 at 12:47:49 (MDT)
Your point that there is more to Christianity than just Biblical literalism is certainly well-taken. But I strongly disagree with your last sensetence of your last paragraph that
Your search should be a search with all your heart,soul,
and intellect to determine whether Christ was and is who Christians claim
He is.
Granted, individuals who are considering Christianity should give it a full and honest consideration. But the above sentence somehow doesn't sit well with me. It comes across as suggesting that people should "determine whether Christ was and is who Christians claim He is" by using "all their heart, soul, and intellect," but that people do not need to conduct the same investigation of other religions and non-religions (e.g., agnosticism, atheism, etc.). Somehow I just don't think you are also encouraging people to "determine whether the Koran is the inerrant Word of God" or to "determine whether the argument from nonbelief for the non-existence of the Christian god is valid", by using "all their heart, soul, and intellect." That is to say, your message describes a pretty narrow investigation of the world's religions. I may be wrong, but that's how you come across.
Sincerely,
P.S. I notice you've chosen to give a bogus e-mail address. If you really believe that what you've written is true, why did you feel it necessary to hide behind an invalid e-mail address?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html
Hi.
i would like to add a short comment to the review of Michael Martin's "The
problem with heaven". Martin analyzes, among other things, the issue
of resurrectiomn - the idea that the dead will be resurrected in this space
and time, eventually, when judgemen t day will come.
W. G. Leibniz had a very interesting solution: His solution was that of
conatuses, or monads, that are - very roughly - the essence of the human
soul, in some infinitely small point inside the body, that can effect more
or less matter. In this way, he bel ieved he has solved the problems Mr.
(or is that Dr.?) Martin has with, for example, the atoms of dead bodies
eventually reaching other living people; as long as the conatus "arranges"
the matter, it does not matter what matter it arranges.
Of course, Leibniz _was_ wrong; however, he's solution was exceptionally
brilliant and deetailed, and it is a pity that thereisno mention of it.
Avital Pilpel <ap241@columbia.edu>
New York City, NY USA - Monday, September 01, 1997 at 19:47:02 (MDT)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
