Re: virus:Logic

chardin (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:41:31 CST+6CDT

Contains a typo "I cannot dismiss your assertions that these
documents are inexact...
In composing the document, I was writing "I cannot dismiss these
documents as inexact" Excuse me please.

> From: Self <UABID/CHARDIN>
> To:,
> Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:33:59 CST+6CDT

> > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:22:19 -0400
> >
> >
> >
> > Cathy,
> > I believe, and by this I mean think, I don't have the
> > reference
> > handy, that the first gospel was written about 90 years (three
> > generations) after the fact, and the other three much later.
> Do you believe that Paul wrote his epistles to the churches? Do you
> have any reason to doubt that? Paul knew the other desciples
> personally---did he not say "I went up to Jerusalem and withstood
> Peter to his face? " about a doctirinal issue? Did he not go to
> Jerusalem and explain to the other desciples his encounter with the
> risen Christ and convince them that he was, indeed, a desciple? Have
> not I already stated that John's Epistle was received gladly as
> authentic by all the churches round about such that it can be
> reproduced in its entirety from their writings. Therefore, I
> cannot dismiss your assertion that the documentation is inexact.
> These people knew Christ and walked with him on the earth, and they
> knew Paul and were convinced of his authenticity. They are credible
> witnesses. By examining the doucments one can see that they are
> quite credible, and differ inasmuch only as different perspectives
> would differ among separate witnesses, i.e., the point of view, what
> to place the emphasis on. In addition, Paul's epistles add further
> coherence to the entire event.
> To
> > answer your question about proof from History, well, you can't
> > really prove anything about anything. Our senses are too flawed.
> > On the next level, I choose to believe that which has a
> > "Preponderance of evidence" and has the "simplest" answer. I
> > believe that the Holocaust took place because the evidence to
> > support this conclusion is overwhelming. There are accounts from
> > millions of people, there are records kept of the incident, the
> > locations where the holocaust took place still exist, and this
> > list goes on and on etc... Anyone who disagrees with that the
> > holocaust took place, would be hard pressed to find evidence and
> > string it together in a logical and simple manner, in the same way
> > that anyone who said the Earth was only a few thousand years old
> > would be hard pressed to find evidence to support this conclusion.
> > Also, it seems the prophecy of "The mark of the beast" is
> > unfounded.
> I am not trying to be stubborn, but it seems to me that what follows
> in the next
> paragraph makes my point for me. John, 2,000 years ago, said
> that in the last days no one
> would be able to buy, sell, or be a part of the marketplace without
> "the mark of the beast." He said this as a warning for the
> believers not to take that mark for to do so is to worship the
> anti-Chjrist and to be a part of his dominion. So, even though
> there have always been deeds, censuses, etc., never before has
> mankind been tracked to such an extent. Not only that, he says
> there will be no place for them to hide from this one-world
> system--no place on the whole earth.
> With satellite tracking, I think I can understand that.
> I don't think there are many people
> > on the planet who aren't seen as a number today. In many
> > countries, carrying a passport or papers to move about is common
> > place. It is a necessity in today's world. Even in biblical times,
> > records of people were kept for taxation purposes, land ownership,
> > slaves kept. The social security number is just one in a long list
> > of numbers, and the next will be the same. You can be tracked by
> > every credit card purchase you make, every plane you get on, every
> > paycheck you collect. This is the price of high technology and
> > freedom.
> So, John saw this 2,000 years ago? He saw the "high price of
> technology and freedom". I find it difficult to believe that
> anything like it existed in his time.
> Some may
> > question the freedom part, even I do a little (i am not as free as
> > i would like to be - no atheist is) but freewill implies that some
> > people will abuse this will, and choose to be evil with it. I
> > think that sometimes we are over zealous in our efforts to control
> > those who wish to abuse "freewill", and this leads to some
> > negative issues. Overall though, the preponderance of evidence
> > squarely sits on the side of the Big Bang, stellar evolution,
> > expanding Universe, Expanding space-time, solar system formation,
> > active complex geological earth, amino acid chains, life,
> > evolution, sentience. As the evidence in the direction of
> > non-divine evolution is so abundant, here is why I choose against
> > religion:
> >
> > 1> There is no, 0, ZERO physical evidence to support it
> > 2> It is so full of obvious plagiarism, and tampering
> > 3> We can trace most of the religions back to their originators
> > who all came at least 150,000 years after mankind was Homo Sapiens
> > Sapiens 4> The probability of accurate translation and information
> > gathering at the time is VERY suspect
> >
> > If god is omniscient, then he knew the terms we use today to
> > describe things. Instead of number of the beast, he could have
> > said "social security number". Many will say that people 2000
> > years ago wouldn't understand, yet they can make the conversion to
> > beast, and expect us to properly translate. I'm sorry, but there
> > is something afoul about the whole religion thing.
> >
> The word "beast" here means something like "hideous being". I am
> using by King James Version, of course, but I understand what they
> mean, especially in context.
> > I do find, and in this we can agree, that the bible and most other
> > writings of it's nature, there is a great deal of insight into the
> > nature of humanity, and a great deal of good that can come from
> > some of the information within, BUT, I find that the negative
> > actions of biblical followers in general are worse than the
> > benefits. If it was up to me, only the stable and non-violent
> > should have access to it's information.
> >
> > Bill Roh
> > AKA Sodom
> >
> Bill, I have never seen your name before. I feel privledged. I
> also enjoy our discussions very much. I did not join the list to
> convince anyone to believe as I do. When challenged on my
> beliefs, I do not mind giving reasons. Only you and the others can
> decide if my system is irrational. For me, it is not.