Tinkerntom wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:

I am desiring to address your post again, and so have reopened it. If
you are interested to respond, I would desire to hear from you. I
posted to this before, but I kept getting a server error so apparently
it never went through, at least Google is not showing it. If you with
your news service did receive something earlier, I would like to know.
It all works good when it works good, but when its bad, so sorry!

==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false
assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those
assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to
you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such
faulty
notions.

Yes, and Good.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and
your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable
to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right
out
of my head.

I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and
caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. I
regret that I was the one that had to knock you on the silly noggen,
but if it provides stimulation for you to consider that some of your
other notions may not be correct, then I hope you will forgive me for
upsetting your tidy little world!


Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present
supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that
you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I
have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?)

I referred you to limited scriptures referring specifically to capital
punishment, which you then made certain conclusions about the nature of
God in general, and of JC in particular. There are many more scriptures
to be examined before we could determine such a broad subject, and
certainly not to be determined by your preconceived ideas based on your
predjudice and nothing I said and/or scripture I have todate even
referred to, would support your jumps in logic.

And in fact, it appears, that you would not actually be willing to
accept the scriptures I do present to you as being authoritative, and
that I know what I am talking about. I would rather you tell me that
you think that I am full of ****, than for you to patronize me. In the
proof of logic, you should provide your own proof. If I provide the
proof for your position, you would not know if I am blowing smoke up
your ass, because you don't have any basis to judge the validity or
not, of what I am saying. And hence any conclusion you make, is you
just trying to blow smoke up mine!

In fact, the further logical conclusion I pointed you to, if you really
cared, is that the very death penalty, resulted in the greatest acts of
love that have ever been displayed, by Christ, and have inspired many
other men to great acts of love as well. Hardly basis for your
following conclusion if you really care!

So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus,
not
a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to
reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid
conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are
the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion
when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is
nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would
look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you
even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is
miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at
crunching numbers, would you please do the honors?

Your conclusion in your last paragraph, illustrates my concern about
you being able to make valid conclusions. You concluded that I wanted
you to conclude that JC "is not a charitable and forgiving God." You
have heard enough from me recently to know that that is not a logical
conclusion from other things I have said, and so your assumtions and
conclusions must be faulted to allow you to arrive at that conclusion.
But you posted your faulted conclusion none the less, indicating an
unwillingness to consider all the data, or a preconceived notion of
what conclusion you wanted to arrive at; the first intellectually
slothful at best, and the second intellectually dishonest at worst. I
prefer to think better of you, and would be willing to look at these
issues further if you desire.

Now if you don't care, and don't desire, and really don't want to deal
honestly with these issues, or even the issue of Capital Punishment, I
am willing to allow you to concede, that you really are not prepared to
present these concerns and issues, and we can go happily on our way.

That does not mean, that you do not have valid concerns and issues that
would be beneficial to consider. If you would like to consider any of
your other lefty ideas, I am still open. Respectfully TnT

Tink, commenting on my new view of JC:
=================
I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind,
loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to
scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions.

Yes, and Good.
======================

But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely saying
that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I
repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me.

Tink wonders:
====================
I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about
the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where
you got those ideas.
====================

I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a
non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the people
around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a
kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the
past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even
close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life
philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc.

Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were
"silly notions".

However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then, if
not love and peace, is the true nature of JC?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink, commenting on my new view of JC:
=================
I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind,
loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to
scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions.

Yes, and Good.
======================

But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely
saying
that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I
repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me.

I believe it is better to figure out what is not right and fix it, than
to think every thing is Ok, and find out that it is not! I think it is
good that your incorrect notions are exposed for being incorrect, then
we can work on figuring out what is the truth. Your notions may be
comforting, and make you feel all warm and fuzzie, but if they are
false, they will eventually get you in trouble.

For example, if you were getting ready to go on a boat trip, and were
going to rent a boat. Now, I knew the guy that ownes the rental fleet,
rents boats that were poorly maintained. Would you rather have me tell
you that the boat you are going out in had a hole that had been patched
with paper-mache. Or would you rather have me not dampen the excitement
of your trip, and let you get out in the deep water, where the paper
mache gets wet and falls out, and exposes the hole. And the boat fills
with water, and things go from bad to worst?

Now if you were operating on misconceptions about God, would it be
right for me to let you continue, without at least trying to warn you.
You may find that some very long held misconceptions, get disturbed,
but hopefully, you and your boat do not end up at the bottom of some
very deep water.

Now, obviously if you are content to paddle around in the farm pond, a
little hole may not be anything to worry about. A lot of Christians
like to paddle around in their little ponds, and they may even be the
best boater in the pond. Not that I would want to trust them, and their
experience in deep water!

Now all that I have addressed so far is why it is good to have our
notions disturbed. As to the exact nature of those notions, and maybe
more important, the true notions, that may take a bit longer to
consider. Suffice to say that the Scriptures say that "God is Love", so
if you have already jumped to a conclusion that "God is not Love," then
I would expect that your conclusion is incorrect, due to incomplete
data, and probably other continuing silly notions.


Tink wonders:
====================
I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about
the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where
you got those ideas.
====================

I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a
non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the
people
around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a
kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the
past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even
close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life
philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc.

Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were
"silly notions".

The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature
and character of God. The apparent expression ot peoples faith is
another matter, which I must tell you many Christians have a few silly
notions about as well. So if you end up with some accompaning silly
notions about how Christians are, and maybe should be "from the society
around me", I am not surprised!

However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then,
if
not love and peace, is the true nature of JC?

frtzw906

Let me start to answer your last question, by asking you a question. I
am going to go out on a limb here and make a big assumption, If I am
wrong, please let me know. Have you ever heard the Scripture, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would you say that this phrase
sets a high mark to strive for in the New Testament? Do you think we
should try to live according to this Scripture today?

Actually that is three questions, I was never that good with math!
Answer these questions for me, and I will be able to answer your last
Question above. BTW, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and
curiosity! TnT

Tink says:
===============
Now all that I have addressed so far is why it is good to have our
notions disturbed. As to the exact nature of those notions, and maybe
more important, the true notions, that may take a bit longer to
consider.
=================

I don't want to do riddles. Just give it to me straight -- what IS the
TRUE notion?

Tink says:
==============
The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature
and character of God.
=============

Sorry Tink. I was NEVER talking about a god. I'm not interested in any
theism. I was talking about JC. I'm open to your interpretations of
JC's position on issues.

Tink says:
===============
Have you ever heard the Scripture, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would you say that this phrase
sets a high mark to strive for in the New Testament? Do you think we
should try to live according to this Scripture today?
=================

Sounds good to me. In fact, it sounds kinda "liberal" to me. You know
what, that's exactly my point to begin with. Recall my initial point:
that JC and the NT were more likely liberal or left-wing than
right-wing?

And further, Tink, as a non-believer, that's EXACTLY the principle I've
been trying to live my life by. Ain't life strange?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now all that I have addressed so far is why it is good to have our
notions disturbed. As to the exact nature of those notions, and maybe
more important, the true notions, that may take a bit longer to
consider.
=================

I don't want to do riddles. Just give it to me straight -- what IS
the
TRUE notion?

The first and most important TRUE notion is that Jesus is God. Jesus
said, "I and the Father are one. If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father!"

If He is not who He says He is, then He is a Liar, and a Fraud, a
Madman, and certainly noone you would want to set as an example of love
and peace, or look to for political options.

If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.

If He is who He says He is, and you want to talk about Jesus, but don't
want to acknowledge Him Being God, you may be the liar, fraud, or
madman. For being God, what He says about any issue, is supremely
important, and what He says about a significant issue such as capital
punishment, only one of the above would casually handle at best, or
ignore to their own peril at worst.

Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result is
the same!


Tink says:
==============
The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature
and character of God.
=============

Sorry Tink. I was NEVER talking about a god. I'm not interested in
any
theism. I was talking about JC. I'm open to your interpretations of
JC's position on issues.

Tink says:
===============
Have you ever heard the Scripture, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would you say that this phrase
sets a high mark to strive for in the New Testament? Do you think we
should try to live according to this Scripture today?
=================

Sounds good to me. In fact, it sounds kinda "liberal" to me. You know
what, that's exactly my point to begin with. Recall my initial point:
that JC and the NT were more likely liberal or left-wing than
right-wing?

And further, Tink, as a non-believer, that's EXACTLY the principle
I've
been trying to live my life by. Ain't life strange?

frtzw906

And so, many folk attempt to live their lives, and especially those who
claim to be Christians, who then feel compelled to emminate this high
ideal. We see this in many noble societies, as you observe those around
you, and see men at their noble best trying to live loving and peaceful
live, truly a liberal existance, and not necessarily an exclusive
Christian expression!

The only problem with this high ideal, as stated by Jesus, was that He
was only summarizing the Old Testament, when He made the statement. As
a summary, though couched in gentler terms, was never the less, still
just an Old Testament teaching. You know the one that has been
mentioned before, that talks about judgement, and death, and killing,
and in particular - Capital punishment! It is all part of the same
bundle, and you can't claim part without taking the whole Old
Testament.

Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause, and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about. They often times have the silly notion, and
they share this silly notion with people around, that their lives
somehow illustrate what Jesus would do. And in reality it is just a
silly notion, that may be comfortable, but nonetheless silly. Their
lives may illustrate at best the Old Testament, but it has nothing to
do with the true life that Jesus offers in the New Testament, and
cetainly not one that reflects Him in the world in which we live, with
the issues and concerns which you ask about!

Jesus, as God spoke of the New Testament, which is leagues above the
Old Testament, in comparison. Everything you have tried to talk about,
is the Old Testament, and though noble and probably very liberal, in
points, is passe as far as Jesus is concerned, and as far as any claim
on our attention, and discussion, it may be academically of interest,
but lacks in depth application for it falls short of the New Testament.

You say you want to talk about deep water stuff, but then stay at the
farm pond, and even there, say you don't want to get your feet wet, you
just want to watch the other paddlers. That may be wise on your part to
not even get in the water even there, if you don't know how to swim,
and are not really interested in learning! The deep water is certainly
out of your league at this time, though it is there awaiting your
exploration!

Does Jesus have things to say about certain issues in our life today,
certainly! I just don't know whether you can handle it? One of your
first silly notions was thinking you could, and I always offer the
opportunity to acknowlege your own short comings before taking you into
deep water where you may not really want to go! Respectfully, TnT

Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept
those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

Then I assume that JC would be of no interest to you, and what He would
do regarding current political issues and concerns, of no importance or
interest as well. Game over! TnT

On 9-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives.

Just to throw gas on the fire - check into Rev. Tom Harpur's writings
on the New Testament. Much of what is written is simply copied from
older, pre-Christian religions. There is virtually no evidence that
JC actually existed.

Mike

Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result
is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who
buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

Sorry about that, Game on, I should have read all your post before I
assumed game over.

A nuclear bomb is any idea or concept that should not be taken lightly.
You would not take paying your house insurance premium lightly, if
there was a fire, you could lose everything. That does not mean you do
not pay your premium because you can deal with the terror of the
consequence if you don't pay!

If He is who He says He is, then it can never be a casual philosopical
dispute to talk about JC. It is not the hazards that necessarily draw
us to boat in deep water, it is the sheer joy of exploration and
discovery, though some may be even attracted to the hazard.

If you out grew such silly notions of God as being the Boogey Man, then
you would know that He is not the Boogey Man. To live a crippled life
claiming He is not the Boogey Man, but acting as if He is, may appear
enlightened, but the fact is, your life is still crippled to the range
of motion allowed by this particular crippling disease, and your scope
of vision to that of someone who is blind. There is no enlightenment in
this, and in fact, you apparently have not out grown the idea at all
despite your claims. TnT