Oakspear

sky: They don't have the emo that you want, unless you can do the custom smiley deal, which I can't. It was not my original intention to post this thread here. I posted the same question at Raf's Living Epistles Society forum (where I am the token non-Christian :D-->) Raf initially set his site up for Christians. When I registered we exchanged a few emails and he referred to me posting there as "an interesting experiment". Recently though, he set up a forum for non-Christians to question Christians. I initiated the forum with the question that started this thread. (Check it out, there is an excellent post by markomalley). Another GS poster asked me to start the same thread here so she could respond to it. It didn't want to at first, since these type of threads usually go nowhere, and often end up as free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability...it gets real ugly. The discussion here hasn't devolved into that this time. I've in particular enjoyed our sparring, sky4it. While I don't believe that a believer should be required to explain his or her faith, or "prove" it to anyone for it to be valid, posting on these type of threads is a bit more productive if the discussion goes beyond: Christian: "Well, I believe in Jesus...I don't care what anyone says" Agnostic: "Prove it" Believe it or not, I really am interested in peoples' answers to "Why Christianity?" - I haven't completely rejected any form of religion at this point, nor have I completely bought into any of them, discussions like this are helpful. Nor have I rejected thinking either; if God did indeed create me, then the ability to reason is part of the package...I'm not going to abandon that ability at this stage of the game. (You going to the Weenie Roast?)

Or, or, or...We can trade "or's" back and forth forever, G; my point was that your statement, while possibly true, was not at all obvious. I realize that you think very highly of VP's class (while thinking little of his attack-dog "Corps), but not all agree. Have a good 'un

Responses to sky4it (as Oak rolls up his sleeves and squares his shoulders) Response to the "Muslim" paragraph You do understand that I'm not a Muslim, right? I was not quoting Mohammed "as if it were objective". Islam is just as subjective as anything else. My point was to demonstrate that there are many convinced-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt Muslims, who believe that they have the no-argument-is-valid "One Truth" and would call you a liar for denying anything in the Koran. You spent a paragraph arguing why the Koran is inferior to the bible, why Mohammed was "off the beaten path" and why Islam therefore isn't true, objective or otherwise. Guess what? I mostly agree with your assessment of the Koran and Islam. However, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see ;)-->) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours? Circular Argument Response Okay, we're operating under slightly different definitions of what it means to be objective. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Anyway, I don't think that you are lying about your experience. My point (which I thought was stated reasonably clearly) is that I have experiences too, so does everybody else. They're not all the same. Do you in your mind decide that anyone with a different experience is lying? Possessed? Seeing devil spirits? Deluded? I would think that you'd have to take a position like that if you maintain that your experience (objective as far as your definition goes, subjective in mine)is true while others' experience (when different than yours) is false. Response to the "Proving God's Existance" section I have never asserted that God does not exist. You may be confusing me with others who post here. Response to the Lazarus paragraph Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book? Hey! How come you're rolling your eyes at me at the end of that post? Response to next post Correct, others saying that they have the truth don't invalidate the truth of your assumptions...IF they are true. I'm not sure what you're apologizing for, but we're both being long winded :P-->, and with Mr. Websterhopper there, we're all getting windy

There's a name I haven't heard in a while. Mel had a contract to install the windows in all the public schools in Lincoln one year (1982). While he was here one of his workers enrolled in PFAL and took it at my house. He also had a co-worker or partner named Bob Pinali (sp?)

But you apparently can't see the difference when it comes to your own dearly held beliefs. Your statement is a logical fallacy, I believe it is "appeal to authority", where you hold your attendance in various classes as if that was an answer to the argument at hand. Thanks. I don't think that you are trying to be offensive, and you aren't being unintentionally offensive either. :D--> Circular argument, once again. We are not calling God a liar. George is stating that he doesn't see any evidense that he exists, and I'm saying that I see no evidense that your version of him is necessarily more true than any other version of him (or her).

"There is no god but God, and Muhammed is His prophet"...some might say that you are calling God a liar sky4it ;)-->

Or maybe they're just suckers... :P-->...not so obvious IMHO Galen!

sky: I think George's point about the "prophesy" in Isaiah giving authenticity to the gospel record is that it is a circular argument. There is nothing that would prevent a 1st century writer (e.g. a writer of the gospels) from fitting his tale into the framework of an earlier writer. You see it happen every time there is a worldwide event of any significance: Nostradamus is trotted out and the events of the day are fitted into Nostradamus' "predictions". Now maybe things happened just the way the gospel writers say that they did; I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and say unequivocally that they didn't, it just that quoting one part of a religion's writings to back up another part of the same religion's writings is circular. Again, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily false, just that circular reasoning doesn't prove anything and is without authority as an objective source. (I've been involved in enough of these discussions with George that I felt confident in jumping in there :D-->) sky, I don't think you understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective" in the context of this discussion. It's not the same as the difference between "true" and "false". At the risk of being pedantic, let me give you an analogy: George W Bush is the President of the United States. This is an objective fact. One may argue about his fitness for office, about the circumstances or legality of his election, including hanging chads, about his intellect or lack of the same, or any other aspect of the quality of his tenure. But the fact remains that he is president. You can't argue it...you cannot reasonably argue that he has not lived in the White House these 3 1/2 years, that he has functioned in all respects as the President, etc. Something that is sujective in this regard would be his effectiveness as a President. Equally passionate people argue both sides of that question, both sides are equally convinced, by what they consider concrete evidense, that they are right. Faith is kind of like that. You, and many other Christians, as well as adherents of other faiths, are convinced that you are right about how you perceive God. Maybe you are right. But it's not objectively true, it's not self-evident. Why? Because reasonable people, looking at the plain facts, will come to different conclusions, will have different opinions about what the facts tell them. One will look at the prophecies that appear to be fullfilled and see God's hand, another will see something else entirely. Claim that it's objective fact all you want, that doesn't make it so: Niether does your beleif system make me feel threatened either sky, so feel free to punch holes in my faith in the earth mother anytime. I just will never see where the concept of finding faith in her is all that difficult when the goddess said it was not. The fact that many make it so, doesn't validate the ops of those who use that as an excuse to invalidate what it really is. Why? Because the goddess said it was not. - (adapted from sky4it's last post)

ckeer: Actually, I'm still formulating my belief system, but when I'm done, I'm sure it will be the one true faith ;)--> - you guys will be the first to know

sky: Yes, I read your statement, I had to re-read it, though, to understand your point. I stand by my previous position: I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, or that you should be offering me "proof" of any kind. You say that you saw "convincing evidense" of Christianity's truth. But only after you decided to "take it on faith". Again, I see nothing necessarily wrong with that stance. My point is that my subjective experience is just as valid as your subjective experience. My position is not that Christianity is wrong, or in any way inferior, just that it's not self-evidently true. In other words, there is nothing about it that a disinterested, objective observer could look at that would lead one to believe that it was necessarily the one true faith.

What I'm seeing so far is: "I like what Christianity says/teaches, it lines up with the way I think things should be" rather than "I see convincing evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is true"

Okay sky, I don't doubt your experience; but do you think that your subjective experience is superior to the experience of a non-Christian, and if so, why? My experiences lead me to the pre-Christian Celtic goddess and Celtic spirituality. I don't see where one is more true than the other.

Gahagan ran for federal office...U.S. Senator from Maine

Yeah, but I didn't hit him

Oldies, Rand was an unapologetic atheist. Her points generally cannot be argued within the context of Christianity, or metaphysics of any kind. But let me make my point using your book:

In discussions that I have had, at Grease Spot Cafe, and in person, I have tried to discern why people have decided to be Christians. Some folks cite the bible, which in my opinion, just moves the question back a step: why believe the bible? My observation has been that it boils down to personal experience...for example: I did what the bible said and got the result I expected I prayed and got an answer I prayed and didn't get an answer, but I feel God's love (or sumpin') I talk to God and He talks back I have a personal relationship with Jesus you get the picture, I'm sure So, my point is, if it all comes down to a subjective experience, feelings, trust, faith, all that; why is that any more correct, or more superior than a Muslim's relationship with Allah, or a witch's metaphysical experiences, or a Hindu's worship of his pantheon? I'm not picking a fight, I just want to know. When I left TWI I remained a Christian for a short time, but just couldn't see any reason to pick Christianity over the host of other choices.

There is a John Galt Blvd. up in Omaha. The studios of a major FM radio station are located there; occassionally one of the morning guys will go off on a "Who Is John Galt?" rant. I haven't yet gotten to the point in the book where John Galt appears, but I did skip ahead and saw that he does :D--> ...and Oldiesman, you don't get the quote, if I may be so bold. Giving to one's "brothers" is slavery when it is under compulsion. Rand's characters can be giving, but resist when it is forced upon them.

Anthem is short by anyone's standards. The copy I had was 50% taken up by notes and revisions. Despite the investment of time, I've enjoyed The Fountainhead and We the Living and am currently slogging through Atlas Shrugged

Is Wierwille Road technically a street?

Unc' H: When I was "in" three years ago, there was no "firm" policy. When I was put on probation in 1999 they put my wife on probation with me, even though the "offenses" were purely mine. Two years later they threw me out and allowed her to stay. If I was an "innie", I wouldn't neccessarily want Donna out of TWI, but out of the "chalet"? Yes.

You can run, but you can't hide!

Good point Grizzy, I guess I saw similar stuff, but had forgotten. I helped in several moves where one room mate got booted and the other didn't.

Thanks all!

I was a senior in high school at the time, working part-time at a gas station. I was making $2.00 or $2.50 an hour for about twenty hours a week. $2600.00 per year.

The last ones I knew about in Nebraska were in existance the year after the WOW program ended, I think 1995-96. We had two in Lincoln and maybe one or two in Omaha. After that there were a few instances of two or three wayfers rooming together, but no Way Homes after that. Part of the reson around here was not enough single people to make a go of it.