Re: Salvation
- From: Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:31:48 GMT
In article <hPORe.20286$k32.9262@trnddc08>, davewheeler1@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> Old news... I have done none of these things. Rather, it
>> is you who is himself guilty of what you accuse others
>> of. But as I said, this is _old_ news. You have been
>> doing this ever since you first wandered in to this NG.
>What I have been doing since I 'wandered' into this
>newsgroup is to point out objections to the beliefs held by
>many here in order to stimulate discussion.
That is a _heavily_ white-washed description of your
activities. For your 'objections' are routinely childish and
without merit. But even this isn't low enough for you, so
you have to sink into blasphemy as well.
>Whilst some of these objections are original and my own,
>most are not new and have been held by people far more
>intelligent than me, or indeed you.
But this is irrelevant, because ALL of your objections have
been refuted by people far more intelligent and educated
than you.
> We are born into this world and in this current century we
>have a wealth of intellectual endeavour to learn from.
Then WHY aren't you learning from it? WHY have you instead
insisted on 'learning' only from enemies of all faith? WHY
have you steered clear of Bulgakov, Berdyaev, Dostoyevsky,
Pavlov, Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak & Shafarevitch? For that
matter, why have you ignored even the timeless wisdom of
Plato and Aristotle?
THIS is where the real "wealth of intellecutal endeavor" is
found in our times, NOT in Huxley, Darwin or Dawkins.
>My reason, whether given by Nature or by God, seems to work
>very well in most situations,
Don't kid yourself. If it were working well, you would not
have steered yourself into such deep darkness under its
guidance. But you have. So your intellectual compass must be
much more badly broken than you are willing to admit.
> yet it struggles to find credibility in your Christian
>doctrines.
You have a gift for understatement. But you miss the point:
just because YOU struggle to find credibility in it, does
NOT mean that the credibility is not there. It means you are
blind to it.
> If that is a flaw in my reason,
It is a flaw in more than just your reason. It is an even
greater flaw in your will and even your heart. It is called
'hubris'. Or, for an alternative term, "mental pride" -- but
unusually acute in your case, which is why I called it
'hubris' first.
>then it is a flaw shared by many great geniuses of
>philosophy and science,
So? It is still a FLAW. And it is a flaw that has _ruined_
many. That is WHY Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex (or so claimed
centuries of literary criticism at least).
> so I don't feel too ashamed.
But you should be. And you will, unless you repent. Better
for you to feel your shame now instead of piling it up for
an even worse experience when it is too late to change.
>If, at the end of this life I find myself having made a
>mistake, that should be God's responsibility, not mine,
That is a cop-out. No, it is your fault and yours alone. For
whenever you could have been inclined either to see evidence
of God's handiwork or 'evidence' of the randomness of
nature, you quickly chose only the latter, belittling the
former.
>since He would effectively have deceived me by
>endowing me with this particular reason that failed to
>believe in his doctrines.
No, that is not why. You have deceived yourself by choosing
only to study anti-religious propaganda.
>I am also impressed, and you should be, by the fact that
>this planet is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be 4.55
>billion years old,
You seem to have forgotten who you are writing to. I never
argued for a young earth. You are too impressed byt what is
really not even very relevant.
> that life has existed on it for thousands of millions of
>years,
Nor did I argue against Evolution. I only argue against the
slavishly materialistic interpretation of it, and every
other diabolical misuse of scientific fact to support
anti-religious propaganda.
> and that all history and day-to-day life experience
>exhibit signs entirely consistent with random nature with
>the odd but not unexpected smattering of serendipity.
But this is patently false. This is where you consistently
make the bad choice, choosing to see randomness instead of
God's handiwork.
> The onus falls on you, Matthew, since you choose to spend
>not inconsiderable time refuting my objections without
>actually refuting anything, to show that your Christian
>doctrines are not anything other than what they appear to
>be, man-made constructs
No, you are "shifting the burden". The onus is on you, not
me. Start by keeping straight who you are talking to.
>Incidentally, I am not prejudiced to believe just what I
>want to believe, as you suggest.
Yes, you are.
> I am a sceptic and that means that I am open to evidence
>and open to modifying my views.
No, it means no such thing. Only in your very fanciful
imagination does it mean you are "open to evidence and
modifying views". Just like everyone else who has
appropriated the title 'sceptic' to himself.
>It is you who is prejudiced and will not entertain
>alternative views. I do concede that, having invested a lot
>of time into coming to the conclusion that God does not
>exist as an interventional Father God, then I would be
>almost disapointed to be be proved wrong.
And you still expect anyone to believe you are not
prejudiced? This disappointment IS a confession of your
prejudice.
>However, that does not change the fact that I am open to
>being proved wrong.
Where is this much-ballyhooed 'openness'? I don't see
any. And nor do most of your interlocutors. Take a hint from
the numbers and take a good look at yourself: that
'openess'' is NOT there.
> You, on the other hand, recognise no such
>possibility
Just as you should not. But you continue to claim you see
what is not there. You even delight in it. And you continue
to claim an 'openness' you _obviously_ do not have.
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
.
- References:
- Re: Salvation
- From: davewheeler1
- Re: Salvation
- Prev by Date: Re: Killing yourself will send you to hell?
- Next by Date: Message regarding the so-called judgment of New Orleans
- Previous by thread: Re: Salvation
- Next by thread: Re: Salvation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
