Re: Historical evidence for Jesus

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 13:11:31 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Historical evidence for Jesus"

    Walt writes

    >Agnosticism is not the worst thing in the world but it is just a wimp's way
    of
    >avoiding taking a position. Keep a foot in all possible worlds and then hop
    back
    >and forth depending upon the way the rocks are flying. Criticize everything
    and
    >defend nothing. But Agnosticism cannot be true unless atheism is not a
    viable
    >world view.

    Once all of the evidence is in, it's easy to dismiss the "God" of the Bible.
    I honestly don't see compelling arguments for or against God. From what I
    can tell so far, agnostics stand firmly for evidence, reason, and logic (of
    course, no one is perfect).

    >The proper response is manly atheism. Seize the bull by the horns and live
    life
    >without the God that does not exist anyhow. Recognize morality for the
    facade
    >that it is and size the moment to grab everything just for numero uno. It's
    the
    >logical path.

    Agnosticism provides all of the freedom that you need. If there is a God,
    he
    would seem to reward agnosticism. Atheists can be perceived as
    "hard-liners."
    Not having your life (more or less) controlled by the church opens up
    opportunities, financial and otherwise.

    >IMO that leads one to eventually think the problem through completely and
    tends
    >to result in the path followed by C. S. Lewis: From atheism to theism to a
    >personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Once one is that point, THE BOOK
    is for
    >spiritual edification -- not the literal cornerstone of one's faith

    Christianity of personal experience. Not to diminish anyone's personal
    experience, but that is very subjective.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question
    http://genesisinquestion.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 11:03:08 EST