Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,258 Year: 3,515/9,624 Month: 386/974 Week: 0/275 Day: 0/18 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living According to Christ: Is it Reasonable?
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 122 (605837)
02-22-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jaywill
02-22-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Sorry. Jesus cared nothing for ANYTHING except the will of His Father.
That sort of blind loyalty isn't even ethical much less the height of what humans should aspire to.
jaywill writes:
And popularity is not the issue. You commit a genetic fallacy though if you say that popularity automactically disqualifies Christ from being the most respected of humans ever to walk the earth.
Thats not the point; popularity doesn't mean that what he claimed was true or even that he was a human. There is no genetic fallacy involved, you just don't seem to get the point.
jaywill writes:
So watch your own logical fallacies and don't imply that the source of the belief proves the incorrectness of the belief.
If someone makes an Argument from Popularity, pointing out the fallacy isn't itself a fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 11:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 2:17 PM Phage0070 has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 77 of 122 (605838)
02-22-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
Benjamin Franklin. For one thing we can actually be sure he did most of the things that are attributed to him; we know we are talking about a human being and not mythology.
Franklin's deeds and words do not cut to the heart the way the teaching of Jesus does.
It is more likely that as a defensive measure the skeptic will assign "mythology" to Jesus' life and teaching because of personal vested interest.
I think this is far more likely then in the case of Ben Franklin, as fine a stateman as he was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:42 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:12 PM jaywill has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 122 (605839)
02-22-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jaywill
02-22-2011 12:09 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Franklin's deeds and words do not cut to the heart the way the teaching of Jesus does.
Appeal to Emotion.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that as a defensive measure the skeptic will assign "mythology" to Jesus' life and teaching because of personal vested interest.
Or you could actually look into the subject and see that the historicity of much of Jesus's sayings and acts are of great debate and doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:09 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 79 of 122 (605845)
02-22-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 12:12 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
Appeal to Emotion.
I would say more Conscience than emotion.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that as a defensive measure the skeptic will assign "mythology" to Jesus' life and teaching because of personal vested interest.
Or you could actually look into the subject and see that the historicity of much of Jesus's sayings and acts are of great debate and doubt.
I noticed that Judas Iscariot had some serious doubts.
The Sanherin and high priests and scribes and lawyers doubted much.
I noticed that Pontius Pilate was concerned with what was "truth" anyway ?
And I noticed that Thomas said, no matter how great Jesus was, he was not going to believe in the resurrection unless he could put his fingers into the nail wounds.
Of course I know that the first critics of the Christian faith did not argue that Jesus never existed. Interestingly they said in essence that He could not have been MATERIAL. He was too good to be a material being and had to have been a phantasm.
The earliest apologetics for the Gospel seems to not debate that Jesus lived when others said no such person ever did. Rather they argued that He was genuinely a material flesh and bones man rather then a Gnostic anti material phantasm.
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived. Probably the first arguments that Jesus never lived have come about in the last two hundred to three hundred years.
Conspiracy theories need time to elapse from the original events before they can become plausible. No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust. Only after most of the survivors of that generation pass then some intellectuals would dare propose that the Jewish Holocaust never happened. Two thousand years from now it may be easier for some intellectuals to propose that the entire World War II is a conspiratorial myth and that a Holocaust never occured.
That is pretty much the way I view your "Johnny Come Lately" Historical Jesus deniers.
I would recommend some lectures by Dr. Gary Habermas. He's quite devoted to the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection from the standpoint of not even assuming the Bible is right or a divinely inspired book.
Here's a little flavor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ
You might also check him out when he appeared on the Infidel Guy radio program as a guest.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:12 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 1:00 PM jaywill has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 122 (605848)
02-22-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jaywill
02-22-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Appeal to Emotion.
I would say more Conscience than emotion.
As you wish, also a fallacy.
jaywill writes:
I noticed that Judas Isacariot had some serious doubts.
I noticed that Pontius Pilate was concerned with what was "truth" anyway ?
Appeal to Popularity. (Do you have a learning disability?)
jaywill writes:
And I noticed that Thomas said, not matter how great Jesus was, he was not going to believe in the resurrection unless he could put his fingers into the nail wounds.
Its funny that Jesus would come back to Earth to provide that sort of evidence in a completely unverifiable story but is comfortable with damning people with the same requirements today. Of course it makes perfect sense if its all just mythology...
jaywill writes:
Of course I know that the first critics of the Christian faith did not argue that Jesus never existed. Interestingly they said in essence that He could not have been MATERIAL. He was too good to be a material being and had to have been a phantasm.
I think you are severely misinformed about the criticism of Christianity. Your account doesn't even match up with your own holy book. Instead you seem to have simply ignored all criticism that didn't come from Christians themselves, which doesn't make any sense considering the point you were trying to make.
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
jaywill writes:
No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust.
You are misinformed. One of the persistent criticisms of the Catholic Church is that it officially questioned and refused to recognize the genocide ongoing within the Nazi regime in return for being sponsored as the official Nazi religion.
As for a historical Jesus having existed, I think that is more likely than not. For example there is the ridiculous gyrations undertaken to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem for his birth as the Old Testament prophecies would require, by fabricating a census that never occurred. The census idea doesn't even make sense because making everyone travel to their birthplace defeats the whole idea of a census in the first place. Its that sort of transparent fabrication that makes me think there was a historical Jesus figure, but that a large portion of his recorded acts and message are mythology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 1:30 PM Phage0070 has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 122 (605851)
02-22-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
As you wish, also a fallacy.
Not really. I am not attempting rigorous "proof". I am happy just with good evidence that we are on the right track to believe.
jaywill writes:
I noticed that Judas Isacariot had some serious doubts.
I noticed that Pontius Pilate was concerned with what was "truth" anyway ?
Appeal to Popularity. (Do you have a learning disability?)
If you want to talk about doubts a good place to start is the doubts raised about Jesus in the record of Jesus itself.
And you are leaning more and more to appeal to ad homs. Argument by humiliation. I see you. You're being clocked. I expect you to get nastier with each new post.
jaywill writes:
And I noticed that Thomas said, not matter how great Jesus was, he was not going to believe in the resurrection unless he could put his fingers into the nail wounds.
Its funny that Jesus would come back to Earth to provide that sort of evidence in a completely unverifiable story but is comfortable with damning people with the same requirements today. Of course it makes perfect sense if its all just mythology...
You're jumping all over the place. Argument by Outrage.
I think we should go back to the modern day relevance of Christ's Gospel.
jaywill writes:
Of course I know that the first critics of the Christian faith did not argue that Jesus never existed. Interestingly they said in essence that He could not have been MATERIAL. He was too good to be a material being and had to have been a phantasm.
I think you are severely misinformed about the criticism of Christianity. Your account doesn't even match up with your own holy book.
Yes what I said matches exactly. For example John's discription of an antichrist doctrine saying Jesus did not come in the flesh.
And more impressively to me, John's personal seal at the end of his Gospel, that he did see blood and water come from the body of Jesus on the cross. Why this was so important for John to mentioned is because early opposers of the Gospel insisted that Jesus could not have been material.
John says in essence "Look, I saw blood come out His body on that cross. He was a flesh and blood man."
Instead you seem to have simply ignored all criticism that didn't come from Christians themselves, which doesn't make any sense considering the point you were trying to make.
The only one I mentioned who really was a Christian was Thomas. But it is doubtful that he would have been one had he not receivced the imperical evidence he demanded.
Give me names of people during the first 900 to 1400 years of church history saying "You know this Jesus Person never even really lived."
Names so I can go study them ?
But this is on the side to the OP.
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
Argument by Ad Hom.
jaywill writes:
No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust.
You are misinformed. One of the persistent criticisms of the Catholic Church is that it officially questioned and refused to recognize the genocide ongoing within the Nazi regime in return for being sponsored as the official Nazi religion.
Okay. But the operative phrase here was "ongoing". After the war ended did Rome deny that the Holocaust had occured ? From what I have seen the eyewitnesses mostly came as the Allies visited those death camps after Germany was defeated.
After the photos and the visitations did Rome say it never happened ?
As for a historical Jesus having existed, I think that is more likely than not. For example there is the ridiculous gyrations undertaken to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem for his birth as the Old Testament prophecies would require, by fabricating a census that never occurred. The census idea doesn't even make sense because making everyone travel to their birthplace defeats the whole idea of a census in the first place. Its that sort of transparent fabrication that makes me think there was a historical Jesus figure, but that a large portion of his recorded acts and message are mythology.
Well, we're jumping around on subject matter. I can see you're up on all the standard Internet Infidel material. A little too much scatter shot going on here.
I think I'll reserve my responses with you for comments touching the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 1:00 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 2:08 PM jaywill has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 122 (605860)
02-22-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
02-22-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
As you wish, also a fallacy.
Not really. I am not attempting rigorous "proof". I am happy just with good evidence that we are on the right track to believe.
Logical fallacies are not generally indicative of the right track to truth. You are interested in believing the truth, right?
jaywill writes:
If you want to talk about doubts a good place to start is the doubts raised about Jesus in the record of Jesus itself.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by its own assessment of itself? Thats moronic.
jaywill writes:
And you are leaning more and more to appeal to ad homs.
First of all, I'm trying to get your attention. I have pointed out flaws in your thinking and you blindly prattled on without modification. Evidently something else is required to make you perk up and take notice.
Second, those are not ad hominems. An ad hominem would be my saying that I am correct *because* you are unable to learn from being shown your mistaken thinking. Instead I am saying I am correct backed up by reasoned argument, and as a separate matter expressing derision at your inability to learn from your mistakes.
Now I am rubbing your face it them in hopes that you will start to apply yourself.
jaywill writes:
You're jumping all over the place. Argument by Outrage.
First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place. Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
If my point were "Jesus wasn't divine because I am pissed off!" then you would be correct. But it wasn't, and you're not.
jaywill writes:
Yes what I said matches exactly. For example John's discription of an antichrist doctrine saying Jesus did not come in the flesh.
And more impressively to me, John's personal seal at the end of his Gospel, that he did see blood and water come from the body of Jesus on the cross. Why this was so important for John to mentioned is because early opposers of the Gospel insisted that Jesus could not have been material.
John says in essence "Look, I saw blood come out His body on that cross. He was a flesh and blood man."
I don't suppose you have considered the possibility that the protests raised by, and protests addressed by, the same book being the same isn't at all impressive? Also, considering the volume of vague blather about future opposition it would be more surprising if there was some challenge that wasn't vaguely mentioned.
jaywill writes:
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
Argument by Ad Hom.
Not so; we are talking about what you can think of, not who existed. Your inability to think of things is directly addressed by criticism of your mental faculties.
Now to the point: There were plenty of people who considered the Jesus described in the story to be a fictional personage. It may have been based in a real person, it might not have been, but the Jesus as portrayed in the story wasn't believed to have been born by many. No virgin birth, no miracles, etc.
jaywill writes:
Okay. But the operative phrase here was "ongoing". After the war ended did Rome deny that the Holocaust had occured ?
No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust.
Would you be attempting to shift the goalposts? Now that would be rather dishonest wouldn't it? Heck, Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust today.
Besides, we are talking about the modern era with photographs and global communication. Thats quite a bit different from Bronze Age record keeping and communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 1:30 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 3:33 PM Phage0070 has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 83 of 122 (605861)
02-22-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 12:05 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
That sort of blind loyalty isn't even ethical much less the height of what humans should aspire to.
Bringing this back towards the relevancy of the Gospel in today's world -
The loyalty of Christ to His Father I cannot say is in any way "blind". It is full of such powerful and perceptive insight into human nature that His words have stood the test of time.
Such insight rather than "blindness" persuades me of the modern day relevance of Christ's model loyalty.
Not only so, the "loyalty" worked in two directions. For God the Father, in loyalty, raised Jesus from the dead. This was a great vindication of Jesus. The loyalty was a two way matter.
Based on God's utter faithfulness to His Son, we today, can rest assured that God is trustworthy. The timing of vindication may not be the same. But the expectation of vindication through God's faithfulness and loyalty to His own promises encourages the believer.
The universal and world wide vindication of Jesus Christ, I believe, is the one inevitable of human history. If anyone is vindicated totally, it has to be Jesus Christ. That's how I see it.
And in myself I don't have that kind of loyalty. God knows that. So He has arrived at a way that Jesus Himself in the form as the Holy Spirit can live in me. It is all about receiving the available Christ into our innermost being.
He, like no other teacher, is able to dispense Himself into us.
By repentance and invitation we human beings can actually invite the life of Jesus Christ into our innermost spiritual being. This is not sentimental. This is actual. It is supernatural.
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:17)
The art of turning over more and more chambers of one's life to Jesus, is, I think, the highest art form and most valuable human skill. Allowing Christ, to enter more and more of one's soul is the greatest achievement.
These are trustworthy words here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:05 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 2:35 PM jaywill has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 122 (605864)
02-22-2011 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jaywill
02-22-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Based on God's utter faithfulness to His Son, we today, can rest assured that God is trustworthy.
Thats the first (and last) claim you made that wasn't pure opinion, and its completely unverifiable and extremely doubtful.
jaywill writes:
These are trustworthy words here.
That doesn't work for the Bible and it won't work for you.
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 2:17 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 85 of 122 (605877)
02-22-2011 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
If you want to talk about doubts a good place to start is the doubts raised about Jesus in the record of Jesus itself.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by its own assessment of itself? Thats moronic.
The New Testament is not fictitious by its own assessment.
If the New Testament is FALSE propoganda, then there are many many things you would expect to have been left OUT of the record.
The doubts raised by disciples, by Jesus' own family, etc.
In the case of "outsiders" to the faith, you would expect suppression of bad things said by opposers, if we were dealing with typical propoganda.
False propoganda would more likely suppress negatives leveled at Jesus by opposers. Why furnish the reader with plausible negative information ?
And False propoganda certainly would more likely suppress embarressing doubts, failures, and denials of the witnesses themselves.
It is not flattering to the disciples to know that Jesus called the leading one "Satan" one time. Nor is it flattering to know that they hadn't the courage to remain with Him in his persecution. Nor is it encouraging to thier credibility that they denied Him and fled, or that women were the first to visit His empty tomb.
There is too much in the New Testament of candidness which leads to an impression that we are dealing with a truthful account rather than false propoganda.
John's central thesis is that Jesus is God. Why then does John record Jesus obeying, trusting, praying to the Father and saying the Father is greater then He ?
It is more likely that John is being faithful to record difficult sayings of Jesus possibly problematic to his (John's) theological thesis rather then suppressing what is not supportive.
Difficult sayings of Jesus are included. Problematic sayings of Jesus are included. Contraversial sayings of Jesus are included. Potentially embaressing rumors of Jesus are included, ie. He was accused of being a winebibber, insane, beside Himself, demon possessed, His own brothers doubted His claims.
Teachings which seem impossible to obey were not suppressed but included. That is why this very thread. Some people have seized upon what they view as extremly difficult teachings of Jesus to make a case that they are impractical.
Another way of looking at it is that if the writers were spinning fictitious stories of someone they wanted to reader to believe in, they would SUPPRESS impossible of very difficult sayings of Jesus.
They did not. And this strikes some of us as evidence of thier faithfulness - ie. "This is what HE SAID" Whether they liked it or not, whether they could even follow it themselves or not.
Candidness, faithfulness to a extraordinary and often difficult personality is what I see in the New Testament rather then skillful spinning of false propoganda.
First of all, I'm trying to get your attention. I have pointed out flaws in your thinking and you blindly prattled on without modification. Evidently something else is required to make you perk up and take notice.
Second, those are not ad hominems.
Thanks for the little clarification. But I still recognize references to "brain dead," "moronic" and such quips are ad homs.
Now I am rubbing your face it them in hopes that you will start to apply yourself.
Sounds to me like you're breaking your arm patting yourself on the back there.
First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place.
I knew old potty mouth would come out sooner or latter. LOL.
Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
Explain this paragraph a little more.
If my point were "Jesus wasn't divine because I am pissed off!" then you would be correct. But it wasn't, and you're not.
jaywill writes:
Yes what I said matches exactly. For example John's discription of an antichrist doctrine saying Jesus did not come in the flesh.
And more impressively to me, John's personal seal at the end of his Gospel, that he did see blood and water come from the body of Jesus on the cross. Why this was so important for John to mentioned is because early opposers of the Gospel insisted that Jesus could not have been material.
John says in essence "Look, I saw blood come out His body on that cross. He was a flesh and blood man."
I don't suppose you have considered the possibility that the protests raised by, and protests addressed by, the same book being the same isn't at all impressive?
So you are very suspicious that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
You feel you are being munipulated by clever lies in the four gospels ? I don't share that feeling.
I don't get the impression that some fishermen concocted this character and placed words in His mouth, with a view to trick the world. It just doesn't read that way to me.
I would have to figure out what was in it for them to do such a thing. Becoming disciples of this Jesus involved them in nearly nothing but serious trouble and death
Also, considering the volume of vague blather about future opposition it would be more surprising if there was some challenge that wasn't vaguely mentioned.
If you haven't been reading the New Testament, my mentioning of passages may be unfamiliar to you. I do not always go chapter and verse. I assume that if you noticed that the census of Luke has some historical problems then you must be well read enough to know what I am talking about in at least a general sense.
The two references were First John 1:1,2 about handling with their hands the logos of life which was with the Father, and Jesus Christ coming in the flesh 1 John 4:1-4 . And of course the references to John seeing blood and water coming from the body of Jesus is in [b]John 19:31-37 particularly John's personal testimonial in verse 35.
"And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he know that he saus what is true, that you also may believe."
The writer is refering to the fact that he witnessed blood and water pour forth from the wounds of the body of Jesus on the cross.
I assume you have done some reading of the NT so I do not always give chapter and verse.
jaywill writes:
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
Argument by Ad Hom.
Not so; we are talking about what you can think of, not who existed. Your inability to think of things is directly addressed by criticism of your mental faculties.
Now to the point: There were plenty of people who considered the Jesus described in the story to be a fictional personage. It may have been based in a real person, it might not have been, but the Jesus as portrayed in the story wasn't believed to have been born by many. No virgin birth, no miracles, etc.
And I asked you for names from 900 - 1400 AD. I know Bart Erhman doubts. I mean ancient doubters of miracle working Jesus of Nazareth. That Jesus was some kind of miracle worker was reported by Josephus.
I know that early Judaism of the second century and after, which is practically founded on the denial of the claims of Jesus' messiaship, would say He was an illegetimate child of some Roman soldier.
Now a word about Emotional appeal.
God's first command was that we love Him with our whole being, emotions included. Paul says that Christ loved him and died for him. To believe with a loving emotion towards the Son of God is not wrong.
Because He is Godman the Gospel says He could do something both universal and intensely personal at the same time. He died for each of us. He is God in eternity and man in time. So His act is an act that is personal as well as universal.
I am happy that you are a big cerebrum and can think very logically about this Gospel. But you should also include some time in your musing that if this is right, God as a man laid down His life in love for you.
That should touch your emotion. And you should include consideration of His sacrificial love for you on a personal level. I don't think you are that much more educated then Saul of Tarsus was. He was accused of going mad because of too much education. And Paul said Christ loved him and gave up Himself for him.
So we can come to believe with not just PART of our humanity but our whole humanity, including our emotion. It is no special advantage that restrict our considerations of Jesus Christ just to intellect.
And I think that God has made the most essential truths of human life accessible to the most people. If only chemist were allowed to drink because only chemists could understand water, then the vast majority of us would die of thirst. Water, air, gravity and essential things to human life are accessible in a universal way.
"Whosoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life" is a wide open door. It is not an elitest realm of only experts in laws of logic and philosophical debate.
Your coming off at me as "More educated then Thou" only impresses me that you expect a that the most important truths man needs to know are narrowly approached by an intellectual elite.
I am more impressed with God's way of making the most vital facts about man's life and relationship to God wide open to whoseover would believe that someone could be as wonderful as Jesus the Son of God.
My faith rests more in the power of God then in the wisdom of men. Christ came into my life with power. And my whole being was involved - mind, emotion, will, consience, and most importantly a praying spirit.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 2:08 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 4:24 PM jaywill has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 122 (605886)
02-22-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jaywill
02-22-2011 11:24 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
At the root of your position here do you believe that there is an individual choice between some sort of "bliss" and some sort of "damnation"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 11:24 AM jaywill has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 122 (605887)
02-22-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jaywill
02-22-2011 3:33 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
The New Testament is not fictitious by its own assessment.
To phrase it another way, "Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by what the book has to say about itself?"
I'm going to give you a pass on this because the wording on my first post was somewhat open to misinterpretation. However I still think you are intentionally reaching with that.
jaywill writes:
If the New Testament is FALSE propoganda, then there are many many things you would expect to have been left OUT of the record.
I said mythology, not propaganda. Myths and legends don't always develop through coordinated effort, but through incremental exaggeration and fabrication. Also many myths have some factual elements left over.
jaywill writes:
The doubts raised by disciples, by Jesus' own family, etc.
This seems perfectly consistent with a scam artist who develops a following but doesn't have the family in on it.
jaywill writes:
False propoganda would more likely suppress negatives leveled at Jesus by opposers. Why furnish the reader with plausible negative information ?
For all you know this *is* the sanitized version.
jaywill writes:
It is not flattering to the disciples to know that Jesus called the leading one "Satan" one time. Nor is it flattering to know that they hadn't the courage to remain with Him in his persecution. Nor is it encouraging to thier credibility that they denied Him and fled, or that women were the first to visit His empty tomb.
Yes, the Judeo-Christian religion seems inherently masochistic doesn't it?
jaywill writes:
There is too much in the New Testament of candidness which leads to an impression that we are dealing with a truthful account rather than false propoganda.
A: Not propaganda, myth.
B: Except for any independently verifiable accounts of anything significant to back up the story.
C: Says your completely irrelevant opinion.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that John is being faithful to record difficult sayings of Jesus possibly problematic to his (John's) theological thesis rather then suppressing what is not supportive.
Gee, wouldn't it be convenient if there was some way he could have contacted a supervisory being with all that information squared away so he could clear up that confusion? Too bad nothing like that exists ehh?
jaywill writes:
Difficult sayings of Jesus are included. Problematic sayings of Jesus are included. Contraversial sayings of Jesus are included. Potentially embaressing rumors of Jesus are included, ie. He was accused of being a winebibber, insane, beside Himself, demon possessed, His own brothers doubted His claims.
Sounds like the story casts significant doubt on itself in addition to completely lacking reliable historical support, as well as contradicting our understanding of the universe and natural law. Weren't you arguing in favor of this thing?
jaywill writes:
Another way of looking at it is that if the writers were spinning fictitious stories of someone they wanted to reader to believe in, they would SUPPRESS impossible of very difficult sayings of Jesus.
But what if they were gradually modifying stories about a being which they believe to exist but allowed their imagination to modify through belief in a sort of "extrasensory revelation" where disembodied voices or urges could guide their actions? Sort of like Ouija boards.
jaywill writes:
Thanks for the little clarification. But I still recognize references to "brain dead," "moronic" and such quips are ad homs.
Then you are wrong. They are quips, perhaps even insults, but they are not ad hominem unless the justification for an argument is based on them.
I'll add an inability to properly use logical terminology and willful ignorance to your tab.
jaywill writes:
First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place.
I knew old potty mouth would come out sooner or latter. LOL.[/qs]
I think you have forgotten to actually make an argument or point.
jaywill writes:
Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
Explain this paragraph a little more.
It seems pretty clear and concise, but I'm game to run over the basics again.
The story says that Jesus provided Thomas with direct physical proof and examination to prove the reality of his death and resurrection. There are many atheists today who happily convert if Jesus would do the same thing as done for Thomas; physically manifest himself and allow examination to prove the reality of the claim.
Yet he does not, with the reported consequences being eternal damnation. Now we know that Jesus was willing and able to do it once, so what possible reason could he have to not do it for these people? To allow people to be tortured forever simply because he can't be arsed to magic himself down to Earth for a show-and-tell session is *cruel* and inconsistent with his purported nature.
jaywill writes:
You feel you are being munipulated by clever lies in the four gospels ? I don't share that feeling.
I'm not interested in your feelings. Your feelings are, if not completely irrelevant, at least irrelevant to me. I'm interested in proof.
jaywill writes:
It just doesn't read that way to me.
Bilbo Baggins also wrote with sincerity.
jaywill writes:
I would have to figure out what was in it for them to do such a thing. Becoming disciples of this Jesus involved them in nearly nothing but serious trouble and death
Gee, I'm glad nobody else in the course of human history has died for the sake of a different faith. I would hate for such a sacrifice to be completely useless as a discerning factor.
jaywill writes:
"And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he know that he saus what is true, that you also may believe."
Scout's Honor?! Well gosh, guess that settles it.
jaywill writes:
And I asked you for names from 900 - 1400 AD. I know Bart Erhman doubts. I mean ancient doubters of miracle working Jesus of Nazareth. That Jesus was some kind of miracle worker was reported by Josephus.
First of all Josephus isn't reliable.
"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too."

- Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1048—1131)
But you don't need those names; you already said you were aware that Jesus's own family doubted him. So what are you going on about?
jaywill writes:
Now a word about Emotional appeal.
...
That should touch your emotion. And you should include consideration of His sacrificial love for you on a personal level.
And you have sunk to blatant advocation of logical fallacies. I'm going to put this is plainly as possible:
You don't think well. There are clear flaws in your thought and you are not even making an effort to fix them. This is why I won't, and nobody else should, pay any attention to what you think about things.
jaywill writes:
Your coming off at me as "More educated then Thou" only impresses me that you expect a that the most important truths man needs to know are narrowly approached by an intellectual elite.
And you appear to have no interest in intellectual honesty or coming to correct conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 3:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2011 11:22 AM Phage0070 has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 88 of 122 (606219)
02-24-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 4:24 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
My replies will be tailored to bring the discussion back to the modern day reasonableness of living according to Christ.
I said mythology, not propaganda. Myths and legends don't always develop through coordinated effort, but through incremental exaggeration and fabrication. Also many myths have some factual elements left over.
The Christian has the Holy Spirit Who confirms so much of what one reads in the Bible that he has confidence he is on the right track to believe. There is a lot about this in the NT starting with Christ's own words about the coming of the Spirit of reality, the Another Comforter in John 14, 16.
I was not there when 500 disciples at one time witnessed the resurrected Jesus, as Paul reported (1 Cor. 15:6). And he wrote that most of them were alive at that time. So they could have been available to the Corinthain audience to point out Paul's fraud had Paul been lying. That's why he wrote about the 500 eyewitnesses.
I was not there. But in modern times I can say that God only became real to me from the time I called upon the name of Jesus. I can now read New Testament epistles and recognize what they are talking about because I have experienced much of the same.
jaywill writes:
The doubts raised by disciples, by Jesus' own family, etc.
This seems perfectly consistent with a scam artist who develops a following but doesn't have the family in on it.
I don't believe either Jesus Christ or His apostles were scam artists.
jaywill writes:
False propoganda would more likely suppress negatives leveled at Jesus by opposers. Why furnish the reader with plausible negative information ?
For all you know this *is* the sanitized version.
Whatever "version" it is it is believable. I don't think man would make up such a character as Jesus Christ even if he were able to imagine such a person, which I don't believe we are able.
Yes, the Judeo-Christian religion seems inherently masochistic doesn't it?
No.
jaywill writes:
There is too much in the New Testament of candidness which leads to an impression that we are dealing with a truthful account rather than false propoganda.
A: Not propaganda, myth.
B: Except for any independently verifiable accounts of anything significant to back up the story.
C: Says your completely irrelevant opinion.
A. God became real to me when I called upon the name of Jesus. This strong experience leads me to believe I am on the right track.
It seems obvious that the writers of the Gospels are writing with the purpose to convince the reader to believe what is being written. But they do not beg. It is very concise and matter of fact. So it is propoganda (of the true kind).
C. S. Lewis was an expert liturary critic. Lewis said the NT did not at all read like myth.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that John is being faithful to record difficult sayings of Jesus possibly problematic to his (John's) theological thesis rather then suppressing what is not supportive.
Gee, wouldn't it be convenient if there was some way he could have contacted a supervisory being with all that information squared away so he could clear up that confusion? Too bad nothing like that exists ehh?
God can be contacted today. That is why I believe I am on the right track to put my trust in Jesus.
Of the four gospel, John and Matthew do not leave us with the impression that Jesus is absent. Whereas Mark and Luke speak of Christ's ascension to heaven, Matthew and John present another side. That is that Christ is with His disciples until the consummation of the age. He never left.
If God and Christ cannot be contacted then the whole New Testament is vain.
jaywill writes:
Difficult sayings of Jesus are included. Problematic sayings of Jesus are included. Contraversial sayings of Jesus are included. Potentially embaressing rumors of Jesus are included, ie. He was accused of being a winebibber, insane, beside Himself, demon possessed, His own brothers doubted His claims.
Sounds like the story casts significant doubt on itself in addition to completely lacking reliable historical support, as well as contradicting our understanding of the universe and natural law. Weren't you arguing in favor of this thing?
A point you may be missing is that these difficulties were not edited out. They indicate candidness.
I'm biased. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, I have no hope.
Fortunately, I'm sure my bias is rooted in what is real. And alternative explanations of the life of Jesus and the rise and spread of the Christian faith appear largely nonsensical to me.
Ie. The Passover Plot and other pop culture attempts to concoct an atheist friendly "historical Jesus".
jaywill writes:
Another way of looking at it is that if the writers were spinning fictitious stories of someone they wanted to reader to believe in, they would SUPPRESS impossible of very difficult sayings of Jesus.
But what if they were gradually modifying stories about a being which they believe to exist but allowed their imagination to modify through belief in a sort of "extrasensory revelation" where disembodied voices or urges could guide their actions? Sort of like Ouija boards.
I don't think the 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus could all at the same time have this "extrasensary revelation" together. That's harder to believe then the straight forward Gospel report.
Besides, there were warnings to the Christains not to be carried away by such things. For instance, Paul in the Colossian epistles warns against running after someone's visions. Warinings against following myths are also present in the epistles. A sense of caution against gullibility is quite present in the New Testament.
jaywill writes:
Thanks for the little clarification. But I still recognize references to "brain dead," "moronic" and such quips are ad homs.
Then you are wrong. They are quips, perhaps even insults, but they are not ad hominem unless the justification for an argument is based on them.
You used them as justifications for your argument, directly or indirectly.
It's ok, I forgive you. I understand your frustration with me.
I remember thinking that I REALLY understood people who talked about God as if they knew God once.
I'm skipping down a little.
I think you have forgotten to actually make an argument or point.
Okay, here's a point, and related to the OP.
Knowing Jesus Christ has answered many pressing questions about life that I had.
Where I came from and why I am here.
Why there is sin and death in the world.
How can I know God.
What is God's plan for my life.
What is God's purpose in creating the world.
The problem of death.
The problem of vanity and emptiness in life.
The possibility of forgiveness.
The possibility of a real new beginning in life.
The real reconciliation with people offended in my past.
The best gift to offer loved ones, like parents and children.
The expectation of where history is going.
The sense of destiny.
The undying and unfailing love of God.
The limitless possibilities of an eternal life.
The most proper high standard of ethics.
The best morality to live by.
These are all treasures that I have received because of believing in Jesus Christ.
If I drop my faith in Jesus Christ (if I possibly could) and pick up your philosophy, what does your philosophy offer me in terms of these things?
jaywill writes:
Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
Explain this paragraph a little more.
It seems pretty clear and concise, but I'm game to run over the basics again.
The story says that Jesus provided Thomas with direct physical proof and examination to prove the reality of his death and resurrection. There are many atheists today who happily convert if Jesus would do the same thing as done for Thomas; physically manifest himself and allow examination to prove the reality of the claim.
I see your point now.
Well, I don't know right now what to say about that. But in my case the witness within my being that Jesus was alive was very substantial. And He did tell Thomas "Because you have seen you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed" (John 20:29) .
There has been a delightful blessedness in knowing within my spirit that behind the name Jesus is a living Person. I didn't not have the physical eye test presented to Thomas. But I certainly have no feeling of having been left out or missed anything.
You know, in Exodus, God appeared in a phenomenon of loud noise and fire dramatically for about 40 days. Curiously, it eventually didn't stop the Hebrews from wanting to make a golden calf and march back into Egypt "the iron furnace" of oppression.
We're not always sure how the human heart will react to undisutable visible evidence of the Divine Being.
I mean, it might be that an atheist upon seeing Jesus appear in their bedroom tonight, might check His wounds only to dismiss Him. "Well, I still don't want you."
Suppose Christ did show you His wounds this evening. Maybe you still don't want to confess that you are a sinner in need of God's forgivness and Christ's Lordship ?
It is not a matter of agreeing with some correct information about the existence of God. It is a matter of allowing Christ His proper place as the center and throne of reality rather than your own ego.
But it is very comfortable to allow things to be placed where they should be. It is comfortable for the Holy Spirit to pour into your heart. The weight of real guilt because of real transgressions is lifted.
I was surprised at the weight I was carrying around when suddenly it was lifted. "Have I been carrying that around ?" I asked myself.
Jesus removes the real weight of real sins that the sinner is under. And His love replaces that awful weight.
When you are forgiven by God, you're made alright.
Yet he does not, with the reported consequences being eternal damnation. Now we know that Jesus was willing and able to do it once, so what possible reason could he have to not do it for these people? To allow people to be tortured forever simply because he can't be arsed to magic himself down to Earth for a show-and-tell session is *cruel* and inconsistent with his purported nature.
I guess we just underestimate the hatred that man has towards God.
I mean, why should they have thirsted and cried out for His crucifixion at all ? It seems insane that Calvary should have occured in the first place if so much visible proof of the love of God had been manifested in Jesus.
If He has shown so much of His goodness, why did the mob cry out "Crucify, Crucify Him"?
Judging from the bitter sarcasm of your complaint, it seems our hearts have not changed.
And if feel that the real torment of damnation may be the burning of the conscience as to why such sacrificial love of God has been spurned. Maybe hell is an escape from the awful truth of facing who has been rejected.
The Bible may have spoken the matter in terms which all can understand. I don't like eternal perdition any more then anyone else. In fact I tried very hard to see it through the eyes of Universalist doctrines. I studied their best arguments against eternal punishment.
But my conscience would simply not allow me to twist the Bible to arrive at their conclusions.
The Bible does not say one has to believe in eternal damnation in order to be saved. It says one has to believe in Christ. So I would get salvation first and then take my problems of eternal damnation to God.
jaywill writes:
You feel you are being munipulated by clever lies in the four gospels ? I don't share that feeling.
I'm not interested in your feelings. Your feelings are, if not completely irrelevant, at least irrelevant to me. I'm interested in proof.
You can start by thinking about the proof that you are a sinner. You know what is right what to do. You even agree that you SHOULD do this or that. But somehow you do not have the power to pull it off and you often do what you do not agree with.
The good that you know to do you do not always do. And the bad that you do not agree with, you sometimes find yourself powerless to resist.
Instead of mathematical formulas as "proofs" of God's existence, maybe you could start putting your life in the light of Christ's life. Stand next to Him.
From there maybe you can get some proof that God's forgiveness and God's grace and power to live differently, would be a desirable matter.
jaywill writes:
It just doesn't read that way to me.
Bilbo Baggins also wrote with sincerity.
Triviality by association is not impressive to me. Wise cracks like that just indicate to me someone desperate to take a troublesome Jesus Christ, and not have to deal with Him by trivializing Him.
God is not mocked.
jaywill writes:
I would have to figure out what was in it for them to do such a thing. Becoming disciples of this Jesus involved them in nearly nothing but serious trouble and death
Gee, I'm glad nobody else in the course of human history has died for the sake of a different faith. I would hate for such a sacrifice to be completely useless as a discerning factor.
That the twelve died for thier faith doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead. It does prove that they believed that He had risen from the dead. That is an important historical fact.
Yes the modern day Moslem may blow himself up because he believes he will go to heaven and be rewarded by Allah. You are right that other believers have died for a belief.
But we were talking about the founders of the Christian Gospel, its writers and original apostles. This is a death because they believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
I think there is a difference in the 12 apostle's deaths and the modern day Moslem Jihad death. But if not, I would still not stop and throw up hands in dispair that with this logic:
" Because there are other strong beliefs besides the belief in Christ, therefore, Christ cannot be the truth, otherwise there should only be one strong belief system in all of history. "
That there are other strong beliefs is not sufficient proof that the New Testament cannot be true. And in other areas of life you probably do not make decisions based on that kind of reasoning.
For example, you probably did not choose your profession or educational curriculum because no one anywhere was enthusiastic about another profession or educational curriculum.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 4:24 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2011 2:38 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 110 by Phage0070, posted 02-26-2011 7:31 PM jaywill has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 122 (606275)
02-24-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jaywill
02-24-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
Still at the root of your position here is the belief that there is an individual choice between some sort of "bliss" and some sort of "damnation". Essentially Pascal's wager.
Jaywill writes:
If I drop my faith in Jesus Christ (if I possibly could) and pick up your philosophy, what does your philosophy offer me in terms of these things?
You can cite all the psychological comfort or confidence of belief in the world - But this has no bearing on what is or is not real does it?
So do you think it is reasonable to discard what is real for what makes you feel good? I guess that is the question here in your own particular case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2011 11:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2011 6:03 PM Straggler has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 90 of 122 (606311)
02-24-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
02-24-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
Still at the root of your position here is the belief that there is an individual choice between some sort of "bliss" and some sort of "damnation". Essentially Pascal's wager.
The root of my position is that it is reasonable to love and accept Jesus as the Savior, the Lord, the Son of God.
I have not seen from you or anyone else here yet sufficient reason to believe that it is not reasonable to be a Christian today.
If you think that somehow providing a defeater to Pascal's Wager does that job for you, then write it up. I'll see if it has the same effect on me.
Jaywill writes:
If I drop my faith in Jesus Christ (if I possibly could) and pick up your philosophy, what does your philosophy offer me in terms of these things?
You can cite all the psychological comfort or confidence of belief in the world - But this has no bearing on what is or is not real does it?
I don't know why you quoted this particular part of my post with this reply.
I hope you don't submit this response as what your philosophy offers in place of what Christ offers me. It is not very much.
That question was to another poster. Is this what your philosophy offers me in terms of those matters I listed ?
So do you think it is reasonable to discard what is real for what makes you feel good? I guess that is the question here in your own particular case.
Who said anything about discarding what is real ?
And what is wrong with Christ providing salvation not just to one part of my being, but my whole being ?
He loves my whole humanity. He is the Savior of my whole humanity, and the environment too. I borrowed the word "holistic".
However, every person who comes to Jesus Christ sooner or latter has to learn to go deeper then feelings. No, no, feelings are not always the bedrock assurance.
I could discribe the faith as sometimes like learning to fly a plane through zero visibility. You have nothing but the grey matter of clouds out the window. But you have something like radar that keeps you on track.
As Jesus Christ grows and expands in the person the curriculum includes many lessons. The sun shines behind the storm clouds. And the word of God is faithful beyond the feelings.
God may not be real to you. That does not mean that God is not real. Most likely the matter that causes God not to seem real to you is your sins which need forgiveness. Your sins have made a separation between you and God. Your sins makes a kind of insulation and barrier to fellowship with God.
When you come to Christ as a confessed sinner, that barrier is removed in His redemption. Then there is no problem to fellowshipping with the heavenly Father. You can commune with God because you agree with God that in Christ your separating sins have been fully dealt with on His cross.
"No, Jehovah's hand is not so short that it cannot save; Nor is His ear so heavy that it cannot hear,
But your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden [His] face from you so that He does not hear ..." (Isaiah 59:1,2)
If Jesus Christ is not real to you, if God is not real to you, it is not because of Pascal's Wager. God is not real to you because your sins and iniquities need God's forgiveness. Then the way of fellowship between you and God will be opened.
In Christ's act on the cross He has already made provision for the solving of that problem. You only need to come to Him in faith and reach out and except Him.
For me it was like stepping out off a ledge. But it is emphacally not stepping off into nothingness. That is what the atheist assumes. It is stepping into a big and faithful loving spiritual "HAND" of sorts. But, admittedly it is stepping OFF into a new reality.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2011 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by frako, posted 02-24-2011 6:17 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 8:29 AM jaywill has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024