text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Don't be so sure. Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during
World War II. If you're prepared to say "Let's round these people up and
stick them in a concentration camp without trial", it's only a short step to
gassing them without trial. After all, it seems that the Nazis originally
only intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly
because they couldn't afford to run the camps because of the devastation
caused by Goering's Total War. Those who weren't gassed generally died of
malnutrition or disease.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[...]
These don't seem like "little things" to me. At least, they are orders
worse than the motto. Do you think that the motto is a "little thing"
that will lead to worse things? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes.
(I am adamantly an environmentalist. I will not use styrofoam table service.
Please keep that in mind as you read this post - I do not wish to attack
environmentalism)
A half truth is at least as dangerous as a complete lie. A complete lie will
rarely be readily accepted, while a half truth (the lie subtly hidden) is more
powerfully offered by one who masquerades as an angel of light.
Satan has (for some people) loosened the grip on treating the earth as something
other than God's intricate handiwork, something other than that on which the
health of future generations is based. It is being treated with respect. You
think he's going to happily leave it at that? No. When one error is rejected,
it is his style to push people to the opposite error. Therefore the earth is
not God's intricate handiwork, not because it is rubbish, but because it is
God. Mother earth is the one you are to primarily love and serve.
I see two facets of a response to it:
1: Care for the environment. Treat it with proper respect, both because it is
God's intricate handiwork and the health of future generation, and because
showing the facet of one who is disregardful of such things does not
constitute what the Apostle Paul called "becoming all things to all men so
that by all possible means I might save some."
Don't say "Forget the environment, I've got important things to spend my time
on." - putting your foot in your mouth in this manner will destroy your
credibility in expressing the things that _are_ more important.
2: Show that it is not the ultimate entity, that it is creature and not
creator. Show that its beauty and glory points to a greater beauty and
glory. Show that it is not the ultimate tapestry, but one of many cords
woven in the infinite tapestry. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have been following this thread on talk.religion,
soc.religion.christian.bible-study and here with interest. I am amazed at
the different non-biblical argument those who oppose the Sabbath present.
One question comes to mind, especially since my last one was not answered
from Scripture. Maybe clh may wish to provide the first response.
There is a lot of talk about the Sabbath of the TC being ceremonial.
Answer this:
Since the TC commandments is one law with ten parts on what biblical
basis have you decided that only the Sabbath portion is ceremonial?
OR You say that the seventh-day is the Sabbath but not applicable to
Gentile Christians. Does that mean the Sabbath commandment has been
annulled? References please.
If God did not intend His requirements on the Jews to be applicable to
Gentile Christians why did He make it plain that the Gentiles were now
grafted into the commonwealth of Israel?
Darius | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[deletions...]
First of all, infinity is a mathematical concept created by humans
to explain certain things in a certain way. We don't know if it actually
applies to reality, we don't know if anything in the world is infinite.
You don't know if the universe is actually continuous. Continuum is another
mathematical concept (based on infinity) used to explain things in a certain
way.
I have a pretty good idea of what infinity is. It's a man-made concept, and
like many man-made concepts, it has evolved through time. Ancient Greeks had
a different understanding of it.
Precicely. We don't even know if infinity applies to reality.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
.d.
.d.
I just thought of another one, in the Bible, so it's definately not because
of *lack* of religion. The Book of Esther (which I read the other day for
other reasons) describes the origin of Pur'im, a Jewish celbration of joy
and peace. The long and short of the story is that 75,000 people were
killed when people were tripping over all of the peacefull solutions
lying about (you couldn't swing a sacred cow without slammin into a nice,
peaceful solution.) 'Course Joshua and the jawbone of an ass spring to
mind...
I agree with Bobby this far: religion as it is used to kill large numbers
of people is usually not used in the form or manner that it was originally
intended for.
That doesn't reduce the number of deaths directly caused by religion, it is
just a minor observation of the fact that there is almost nothing pure in
the Universe. The very act of honestly attempting to find true meaning in
religious teaching has many times inspired hatred and led to war. Many
people have been led by religious leaders more involved in their own
stomache-contentsthan in any absolute truth, and have therefore been driven to
kill by their leaders.
The point is that there are many things involved in religion that often
lead to war. Whether these things are a part of religion, an unpleasant
side effect or (as Bobby would have it) the result of people switching
between Religion and Atheism spontaneously, the results are the same.
@Religious groups have long been involved in the majority of the bloodiest
parts of Man's history.@
Atheists, on the other hand (preen,preen) are typically not an ideological
social caste, nor are they driven to organize and spread their beliefs.
The overuse of Nazism and Stalinism just show how true this is: Two groups
with very clear and specific ideologies using religious persecution to
further their means. Anyone who cannot see the obvious - namely that these
were groups founded for reasons *entirely* their own, who used religious
persecution not because of any belief system but because it made them more
powerfull - is trying too hard. Basically, Bobby uses these examples
because there are so few wars that were *not* *specifically* fought over
religion that he does not have many choices.
Well, I'm off to Key West where the only flames are heating the bottom of
little silver butter-dishes.
-ciao | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, this is also my understanding of the majority of Islamic laws.
However, I believe there are also certain legal rulings which, in all
five schools of law (4 sunni and 1 jaffari), can be levelled against
muslim or non-muslims, both within and outside dar-al-islam. I do
not know if apostasy (when accompanied by active, persistent, and
open hostility to Islam) falls into this category of the law. I do know
that
historically, apostasy has very rarely been punished at all, let alone
by the death penalty.
My understanding is that Khomeini's ruling was not based on the
law of apostasy (alone). It was well known that Rushdie was an apostate
long before he wrote the offending novel and certainly there is no
precedent in the Qur'an, hadith, or in Islamic history for indiscriminantly
levelling death penalties for apostasy.
I believe the charge levelled against Rushdie was that of "fasad". This
ruling applies both within and outside the domain of an
Islamic state and it can be carried out by individuals. The reward was
not offered by Khomeini but by individuals within Iran.
I would concur that the thrust of the fatwa (from what I remember) was
levelled at the author and all those who assisted in the publication
of the book. However, the charge of "fasad" can encompass a
number of lesser charges. I remember that when diplomatic relations
broke off between Britain and Iran over the fatwa - Iran stressed that
the condemnation of the author, and the removal of the book from
circulation were two preliminary conditions for resolving the
"crisis". But you are correct to point out that banning the book was not
the main thrust behind the fatwa. Islamic charges such as fasad are
levelled at people, not books.
The Rushdie situation was followed in Iran for several months before the
issuance of the fatwa. Rushdie went on a media blitz,
presenting himself as a lone knight guarding the sacred values of
secular democracy and mocking the foolish concerns of people
crazy enough to actually hold their religious beliefs as sacred.
Fanning the flames and milking the controversy to boost
his image and push the book, he was everywhere in the media. Then
Muslim demonstrators in several countries were killed while
protesting against the book. Rushdie appeared momentarily
concerned, then climbed back on his media horse to once again
attack the Muslims and defend his sacred rights. It was at this
point that the fatwa on "fasad" was issued.
The fatwa was levelled at the person of Rushdie - any actions of
Rushdie that feed the situation contribute to the legitimization of
the ruling. The book remains in circulation not by some independant
will of its own but by the will of the author and the publishers. The fatwa
against the person of Rushdie encompasses his actions as well. The
crime was certainly a crime in progress (at many levels) and was being
played out (and played up) in the the full view of the media. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all
: humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.? Then who
: were Cain and Able's wives? Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E
: didn't have daughters. Were they non-humans?
Genesis 5:4
and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and
he begat sons and daughters: | 0 | alt.atheism |
Issued by Khomeini it shouldn't be relevant to anyone. But issued
by an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to
any muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims
are required to respect.
Anyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning,
if you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what
sense of "excuse" you have in mind.
Only someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously.
Obviously you don't care, nor do I care that you don't care.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
First, I would like to thank all who sent me their opinions on the matter
at hand. All advice was taken to heart, if not directly used. My friend
found out about the matter quite accidently. After reading some of my
mail, I quit from the mail reader & went about my business. I must have
trashed my mail improperly, because he got on the same terminal the next
day & saw my old messages. He thought they were responses to a post he
placed in alt.atheism earlier that week, so he read some of them before
realizing that they were for me. I got a message from him the next day; he
apologized for reading my mail & said that he did not want to appear to be
a snoop. He said that he would be willing to talk to me about his views &
didn't mind doing so, especially with a friend. So we did. I neither
changed his mind nor did he change mine, as that was not the point. Now he
knows where I'm coming from & now I know where he's coming from. And all
that I can do is pray for him, as I've always done.
I believe the reason that he & I "click" instead of "bash" heads is because
I see Christianity as a tool for revolution, & not a tool for maintaining
the status quo. To be quite blunt, I have more of a reason to reject God
than he does just by the fact that I am an African-American female.
Christianity & religion have been used as tools to separate my people from
the true knowledge of our history & the wealth of our contributions to the
world society. The "kitchen of heaven" was all we had to look forward to
during the slave days, & this mentality & second-class status still exists
today. I, too, have rejected
an aspect of Christianity----that of the estabished church. Too much
hypocricy exists behind the walls of "God's house" beginning with the
images of a white Jesus to that of the members: praise God on Sunday &
raise hell beginning Monday. God-willing, I will find a church home where
I can feel comfortable & at-home, but I don't see it happening anytime
soon. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
At the end of a recent (Mon 19 Apr 1993) post, Alastair Thomson
offers the following "paraphrase" of John 3:16:
"God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son,
to die in our place, so that we may have eternal life."
The "to die in our place" bothers me, since it inserts into the
verse a doctrine not found in the original. Moreover, I suspect that
the poster intends to affirm, not merely substitution, but forensic
(or penal) substitution. I maintain that the Scriptures in speaking
of the Atonement teach a doctrine of Substitution, but not one of
Forensic Substitution.
Those interested in pursuing the matter are invited to send for my
essays on Genesis, either 4 thru 7 (on this question) or 1 through 7
(with lead-in). The n'th essay can be obtained by sending to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU the
message
GET GEN0n RUFF
Yours,
James Kiefer | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
stuff deleted ...
Your logic is falty. If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we
die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that
while you are alive you enjoy yourself.
I also question your overall motives for posting this article. Why
would you waste your presious fews seconds on this earth posting your
opinon to a group that will generally reject it.
If you die, never having acepting Christ as your savior, I hope you
have a fantastic life that it is all you evver dreamed because it is
al of heaven you will ever know. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Oh, that was just a bet.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I was waiting for this. I think your question should be rephrased. The many
verses of the Bible which condem homosexuality (by our beliefs) have been
shoved down the throats of homosexuals for a long time by (well-meaning?)
Christians. The question is how do they interpret these verses. Any discussion
of any issue (this or any other issue) requires a proof of your case as well
as a disproof of the opposing view. We are already familiar with those verses
and many have proven to themselves that these condem homosexual behaviour. We
must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
them. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[...]
Wait a minute, Doug. I know you are better informed than that. The US
has never invaded Nicaragua (as far as I know). We liberated Grenada
from the Cubans to protect US citizens there and to prevent the completion
of a strategic air strip. Panama we invaded, true (twice this century).
Vietnam? We were invited in by the government of S. Vietnam. (I guess
we "invaded" Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, eh?) Mexico? We have
invaded Mexico 2 or 3 times, once this century, but there were no missiles
for anyone to shoot over here at that time. Hawaii? We liberated it from
Spain.
So if you mean by the word "invaded" some sort of military action where
we cross someone's border, you are right 5 out of 6. But normally
"invaded" carries a connotation of attacking an autonomous nation.
(If some nation "invades" the U.S. Virgin Islands, would they be
invading the Virgin Islands or the U.S.?) So from this point of
view, your score falls to 2 out of 6 (Mexico, Panama).
[...]
No, it's someone who believes in "peace-at-all-costs". In other words,
a person who would have supported giving Hitler not only Austria and
Czechoslakia, but Poland too if it could have averted the War. And one
who would allow Hitler to wipe all *all* Jews, slavs, and political
dissidents in areas he controlled as long as he left the rest of us alone.
"Is it supposed to be bad to be a peace-nik," you ask? Well, it depends
on what your values are. If you value life over liberty, peace over
freedom, then I guess not. But if liberty and freedom mean more to you
than life itself; if you'd rather die fighting for liberty than live
under a tyrant's heel, then yes, it's "bad" to be a peace-nik.
The problem with most peace-niks it they consider those of us who are
not like them to be "bad" and "unconscionable". I would not have any
argument or problem with a peace-nik if they held to their ideals and
stayed out of all conflicts or issues, especially those dealing with
the national defense. But no, they are not willing to allow us to
legitimately hold a different point-of-view. They militate and
many times resort to violence all in the name of peace. (What rank
hypocrisy!) All to stop we "warmongers" who are willing to stand up
and defend our freedoms against tyrants, and who realize that to do
so requires a strong national defense.
Time to get off the soapbox now. :)
[...]
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Actually, an apostle is someone who is sent. If you will, mailmen could
be called apostles in that sense. However, with Jesus, they were
designated and were given power. Remember that there were many
thousands of people who witnessed what Jesus did. That didn't make them
apostles, though. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
the classic references in this area are Jacques Ellul for a
liberal/evangelical perspective and Os Guiness for a straight
evangelical view. If you want to look at non-christian sources
try Alvin Toffler as the perennial optimist. His views while
blatently non christian explore where technology may be going.
This is regardless of technology. Be careful to separate the issues of
related to speed and dispersion of technology (how far the letter
went and how quickly it got there) and the message being passed in the
technology (something that seems to be totally wrong.)
When lecturing in this area I challenge my (non-christan/atheistic) class
about the impact technology has on life, quality of life and the rights
that they consider important. Depending on how you work out your
faith will determine your response to the use of technology. For example
friends of mine are considering IVF due to a life threatening situation the
wife is going through; when it is over they will have the baby. (God
willing). In this case the technology is available and my friends have to
decide what to do. In all cases though you must decide if the technology
is against God's revealed word.
Regards
David | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
i did a workshop on this for an episcopalian student gathering a
couple months ago because i wanted to know the answer too. as far as
i could tell, although that story was never specifically _told_ in the
bible, many references are made to it, primarily in the new testament.
in the old testament there is actually an entirely different view of
satan as a (excuse the pun) "devil's advocate" for yahweh. see the
book of job. getting back to the fallen angel story, there are _no_
references to "lucifer" in the bible except for a mistranslation of
"the morning star" in the king james version (isaiah 14:12), which
probably referred to a babylonian monarch much in the same was as "the
sun king" referred to louis xiv.
all in all, i don't know where the story _came from_; it may have been
rolling around for a long time, or milton (_paradise lost_) may have
invented it. sorry for the sketchiness of the rest of this, but i am
in a hurry and need to eat lunch! feel free to email me about the
other stuff i found out.... (although a lot of it is just the result
of a bible concordance program called "quickverse" -- it's really
lousy, by the way -- don't buy it.)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
I think this is a big leap sex->depression. One example is myself,
where no sex->depression :) But, seriously 1) promiscuity is on a decline,
depression is not and 2) it might be more reasonable to say
depression->promiscuity. I think depression is more likely to come
from emotional problems (relationships, family, job, friends) and
promiscuity is used as an escape.
Since I see marriage as a civil and religious bond rather than an
emotional bond, I don't see a problem with sex before (not outside of)
marriage so long as you have the same commitment and devotion as
what is expected from a married couple. Of course, this is just
my opinion. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I apologize if this article is slightly confusing, and late. The origonal
draft didn't make it through the moderators quote-screens. So I did
violence to it, but if you remember the article I am responding
to it should still make sence.
What, no hello for heathan netters?
I feel all left out now. :(
[deletia- table of content, intro, homosexuality]
[deletia- incorrect attributions]
Uh, you have your attributions wrong, you were responding
to my article, so Dan Johnson should be the 1st one.
[deletia- no free gifts speil nuked by moderator fiat.]
Ah, in the _cosmic_ sence.. but who lives in the cosmic sence?
Not me! Cosmicly, we don't even exist for all practical purposes.
I can hardly use the Cosmic Sence Of Stuff as a guide to life.
It would just say: "don't bother."
Luckily for mortals, there are many sences of scale you can talk
about. In a human sence, you can have big purposes.
But the influence of Aristotle, Confucious, Alexander, Ceasar and
countless others is still with us, although their works have perished.
But they have changed to course of history, and while humanity exists,
their deeds cannot be said to have come to nothing, even if they
are utterly forgotten.
One day, surely. (well, unless you believe in the Second Coming, which
I do not)
But in that time we can make a difference.
In the end. But it must be the end; until then, there is all the
point you can muster. And when that end comes, there will be nobody
to ask, "Gee, I don't think James Sledd's deeds are gonna make
much of a difference, ulitmately, ya know?".
But they will have already have made a difference, great or small,
before the end.
Why must your ends be eternal to be worthwhile?
Little is in the eye of the beholder, of course.
I don't doubt it. But I have thought about the cosmic scale. And
it does not seem to mean much to us, here, today.
I would not find this comforting. But perhaps it is merely my
definitions. Here's what I think the relevant terms are:
"Reality" That which is real.
"Illusion" That which is not real, but seems to be.
"Real" Objectively Existing
For "reality" to be an "illusion" would mean, then:
That which is real is not real, but seems to be.
Or:
That which objectively exists, does not objectively exist, but
does seem to objectively exist.
From which we can conclude, that unless you want to get a
contradiction, that no things objectively exist.
But I have a problem with this because I would like to say
that *I* objectively exist, if nothing else. Cogito Ergo Sum
and all that.
Perhaps you do not mean all that, but rather mean:
"Objective Reality is Unreachable by humans."
Which is not so bad, and so far as I know is true.
Have on. If reality is an illusion, isn't True Reality an illusion
too? And if True Reality is spirit, doens't that make Spirit an Illusion
as well?
If I am not distinctly confused, this is getting positively Buddhist.
That is one hell of a statement, although perhaps true.
Do you mean to imply that it was *intended* to be so? If so,
please show that this is true. If not, please explain how this
can give a purpose to anything.
How does it do that?
Wouldn't the world=school w/ intent idea make the world a preparation for
some *greater* purpose, rather than a purpose in itself.
What pressure?
It is not necessary to be a success in human terms, unless your
goals either include doing so or require doing so before they
themselves can be achived.
Indeed, many people have set goals for themselves that
do not include success in human terms as _I_ understand it. Check
out yer Buddhist monk type guy. Out for nirvana, which is not
at all the same thing.
Why is learning to love a goal? What happens if you fail in this
goal? To you? To God? To the mysterious Purpose?
[deletia- question about immortailty and my answer deleted because it was
mostly quote.]
I'll have a crack at that.
(1) The nature of eternal life is neatly described by its name: It is
the concept of life without death, life without end.
(2) No. We can put together word to describe it, but we cannot imagine it.
(2a) No metaphor is adequate next to eternity; if it were we could not
understand it either. (or so I suspect)
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
To what follows, our moderator has already answered the charge of
arrogance more ably that I could have done so, so I will confine
myself to answering the charge of illogic.
This is how everyone in the western intellectual tradition is, or was,
taught to think. It is the fundamental premis "A is not not-A". If a thing
is true then its converse is necessarilly false. Without this basic
asumption theology and science as we know them are alike impossible. We
should distinguish the strong and weak meanings of the word "believe",
however. The weak sense means I am not sure. "I believe Tom went to
the library." (but he could have gone to the track). The strong sense
means I am so certain that I use it as a basis of thought. "I believe
that nature operates according to certain fundamental laws." (despite
the fact that nature *appears* capricious and unpredictable). Christian
belief is of the strong kind. (Though Christians may well hold beliefs
of the weak kind on any number of theological and ecclesiological
topics.)
Note that these are two separate ideas. Most hold the first view, but the
majority do not hold the second. Is is again a matter of pure logic that
if Christanity is true, then Hinduism (for example) must necessarilly be
false, insofar as it contradicts or is incompatible with, Christaianity.
(And, as a matter of *logic*, vice versa.)
It is arrogant to claim to know what *anyone* thinks or wants, unless
they have told you. Christians believe God has told us what he thinks
and wants.
Most Christians do not base their belief on the Bible, but on the living
tradition of the Church established by Christ and guided constantly
by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is simply the written core of that tradition.
If depends what you mean by differing. If I believe Tom is six feet
tall and you believe he weighs 200 pounds, our beliefs differ, but we
may both be right. If I believe Tom is six feet tall and you beleive
that he is four foot nine, one of us, at least, must be wrong.
Thus you believe that there is a single truth but that no human being
can find it. You assert that anyone who believe that we can find
absolute truth is mistaken. In short, you believe that anyone who
does not share your belief on this point is wrong. QED.
Here I begin to suspect that your real difficulty is not with the
knowability of truth, but simply with language. Saying that the glass
is half empty is not a contradiction of the statement that it is half
full: it is the same fact expressed in different words. (The whole
point of this phrase is to illustrate the different ways the pessimist
and the optimist express the *same* fact.)
It is, of course, quite true that different people may express the
same belief in different words. It is also true that they may fail
to understand each other's words as expressions of the same belief
and may argue bitterly and believe that they are miles apart. Great
scisms have occurred in just this way, and much ecumenical work has
been done simply in resolving differences in language which conceal
agreement in belief. This does not mean, in any sense, that all beliefs
are equally valid. Since some of the beliefs people hold contradict
some other beliefs that other people hold, after all obfuscations
of language and culture in the expression of those beliefs have
been stripped away, some of the beliefs that some people hold must,
**necessarilly** be false, and it is neither arrogant nor illogical
to say so. If I believe X and you believe Y we may both be correct,
but if Y is equivalent to not-X then one of us is wrong and as long
as we hold our respective beliefs, we must each regard the other
as in error. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why do we follow God so blindly? Have you ever asked a
physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog?
The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person
cannot.
I acknowledge, as a Christian, that I am blind. I see,
but I see illusions as well as reality. (Watched TV lately?)
I hear, but I hear lies as well as truth. (Listen to your
radio or read a newspaper.) Remember, all that tastes well is
not healthy. So, I rely one the one who can see, hear, and
taste everything, and knows what is real, and what is not.
That is God.
Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses,
how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or
a lie. That is why we need faith to be saved. We must force
ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us
enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think
we know. Why would He have created us if He did not love us
enough to help us through this world?
I also do trust my experiences to some extent. When
I do things that defy the seeming logic of my experience,
because it is what my Father commands me to do, and I see
the results in the long term, I find that He has led me
in the proper direction, even though it did not feel right
at the time. This is where our works as Christians are
important: As exercises of the body make the body strong,
excercises of faith make the faith strong.
As for you, no one can "convert" you. You must
choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to
follow Him. All we as Christians wish to do is share with
you the love we have received from God. If you reject that,
we have to accept your decision, although we always keep
the offer open to you. If you really want to find out
why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try
praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians
about their experiences personally. Then you may grow to
understand why we believe what we do, in defiance of the
logic of this world.
May the Lord bring peace to you, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think the problem here is that I pretty much ignored the part
about the Jews sightseeing for 2000 years, thinking instead that
the important part of what the original poster said was the bit
about killing Palestinians. In retrospect, I can see how the
sightseeing thing would be offensive to many. I originally saw
it just as poetic license, but it's understandable that others
might see it differently. I still think that Ken came on a bit
strong though. I also think that your advice to Masud Khan:
#Before you argue with someone like Mr Arromdee, it's a good idea to
#do a little homework, or at least think.
was unnecessary.
Throughout all your articles in this thread there is the tacit
assumption that the original poster was exhibiting casual
anti-semitism. If I agreed with that, then maybe your speech
on why this is bad might have been relevant. But I think you're
reading a lot into one flip sentence. While probably not
true in this case, too often the charge of anti-semitism gets
thrown around in order to stifle legitimate criticism of the
state of Israel.
Anyway, I'd rather be somewhere else, so I'm outta this thread. | 0 | alt.atheism |
--> Note:
Reply to a message in soc.religion.christian.
EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL wrote in a message to All:
Hi, You might want to read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur. In it
he discussed exactly this queation, amongst others. In my own words,
VERY simplified, his position is basically that one must decide, what
is the most important - experience or Scripture? People tend to say
Scripture, without living according to that. Their own
feeling/prophecy/etc tends to be put across without testing in the
light of Scripture.
There's a lot more than this, really worthwhile to read whether you're
Charismatic or not.
Groetnis (=cheers)
Deon
--- timEd/B8 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There was an article on clari.news.religion in the last few days about a
Polish tribunal decision. It said that crucifixes and religious classes in
public schools were okay; and that children who did not want to take religion
class could not be forced to take an ethics class as a substitute. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
not an entirely different source.
We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
putting John after the rest of the three?
Sure, an original together with Id card of sender and receiver would be
fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something?
That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel
of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it?
One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources.
In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak. | 0 | alt.atheism |
0 | alt.atheism |
|
(Deletion)
You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.
And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It
rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system
without checking if they suit the description.
And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according
to Islamic law?
No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that?
Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?
A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the
primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.
As usually you miss the point. Aids is neither spread only through sex
nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important
point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even
stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The
consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids.
Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex
is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Which means he has absolutely no idea about what the Assumption is.
However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
way God or even part of God or equal to God. The Assumption of our
Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
Heaven. Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
any of the previously mentioned personages.
Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I haven't followed whatever discussion there may have been on these
people, but I feel that C. S. Lewis is an excellent apologist and I
see no reason for embarrassment. If you think that errors and flawed
arguments are a reason for dismissing a thinker, you must dismiss
nearly every thinker from Descartes to Kant; any philosophy course
will introduce you to their weaknesses.
The above also expresses a rather odd sense
I said nothing about "the masses." However comparing "the masses" in
our day and in Aquinas' day really *is* odd. Read Ortega y Gasset on
this.
I'm talking about the familiar experience of arguing all night and
winning on logic and evidence, only to discover your opponent to be
unaware, even intuitively, of things like entailment (let alone
pragmatics). (I am assuming that both parties are college graduates
or better...) Myself, I don't bother any more.
Ken | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello src readers,
Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox
Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion
about it a while ago.
Then OFM comments :
With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration
is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue
of the Copt-Net Newsletter :
Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed
to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played
leading roles in Christian theology. They were invited everywhere to speak
about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the
Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said
that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend all their
time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics
started to intermingle with Church affairs. It all started when the Emperor
Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St.
Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later exiled, to this interference
was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church." These political motives
became even more apparent in Chalcedon in 451, when the Coptic Church was
unfairly accused of following the teachings of Eutyches, who believed in
monophysitism. This doctrine maintains that the Lord Jesus Christ has only
one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.
The Coptic Church has never believed in monophysitism the way it was
portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon! In that Council, monophysitism meant
believing in one nature. Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His
divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His
humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word",
which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two
natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one "without mingling,
without confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith at
the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures "did not separate
for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from the declaration of faith
at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).
The Coptic Church was misunderstood in the 5th century at the Council of
Chalcedon. Perhaps the Council understood the Church correctly, but they
wanted to exile the Church, to isolate it and to abolish the Egyptian,
independent Pope. Despite all of this, the Coptic Church has remained very
strict and steadfast in its faith. Whether it was a conspiracy from the
Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church as a punishment for its refusal
to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus didn't quite go the
extra mile to make the point that Copts are not monophysite, the Coptic
Church has always felt a mandate to reconcile "semantic" differences between
all Christian Churches. This is aptly expressed by the current 117th
successor of St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III: "To the Coptic Church, faith is
more important than anything, and others must know that semantics and
terminology are of little importance to us." Throughout this century, the
Coptic Church has played an important role in the ecumenical movement. The
Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has
remained a member of that council since 1948 A.D. The Coptic Church is a
member of the all African Council of Churches (AACC) and the Middle East
Council of Churches (MECC). The Church plays an important role in the
Christian movement by conducting dialogues aiming at resolving the
theological differences with the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and
Evangelical Churches.
[...]
As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
Monophysitism.
Peace,
Nabil
.-------------------------------------------------------------.
/ Nabil Ayoub ____/ __ / ____/ /
/ Engine Research Center / / / / /
/ Dept. of Mechanical Engineering ___/ __ / / /
/ University of Wisconsin-Madison / / | / /
/ Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu _____/ __/ _| _____/ /
'-------------------------------------------------------------'
[As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me
is confused. I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite. As
Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were
actually opposite parties. The point I was making, which Nabil
explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered
heretical probably aren't.
Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
Antiochenes. It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes. I agree
that there were extremes that were heretical. However in the course
of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
not understood or even was mispresented. And some seem not to have
jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine. There are
groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps. This
posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians. There are also
a remaining Nestorians. Like some of the current so-called
monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
Nestorians are not heretical either. They sheltered Nestorius from
what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
the Antiochene tradition. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Maddi Hausmann chirps:
That's nice.
You forgot the third equality...whirrr...click...whirrr...see below...
= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
...whirrr...click...whirrr
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
I agree totally with you! Amen! You stated it better and in less world
than I did. | 0 | alt.atheism |
No, you don't understand. I said that I don't think people can discuss
the subjective merits of religion objectively. This should be obvious.
People here have said that everyone would be better off without religion,
but this almost certainly isn't true.
But, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder.
Should both be taken away? That is to say, I don't think motto misuse
warrants its removal. At least not in this case. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Are any readers of s.r.c. going to the Love Europe congress in Germany this
July? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[">"= Mark, ">>"= mp]
I am sorry you find these charges amusing, Mark. I understand your
frustration though--it can be kind of scary to find your assumptions
challenged. Some of the specific cultural interference to which I refer
includes linguistic manipulation, for instance, their Tzotzil-Spanish
dictionary removed both Spanish and Tzotzil words for concepts which are
threatening to the ruling ideology, e.g., class, conquer, exploitation,
repression, revolution, and described words which can express
ideological concepts in examples like "Boss--the boss is good. He treats
us well and pays us a good wage." As some of my students would say,
"NOT!"
Your tone implies that you are unlikely to believe me--indeed, why
should you? If you are interested enough to do some further research
though, and you sound as if you are, here are some references for you.
Stoll, David. _Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible
Translators in Latin America_.
_Sectas y Religiosidad en America Latina_.
_Los Angeles Times_, Dec. 11. 1977.
_Latin America Press_, May 19, 1983.
_Washington Times_, June 22, 1984.
Happy hunting. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why would you say "especially Christianity"?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Actually, the story goes that Lucifer refused to bow before MAN as
God commanded him to. Lucifer was devoted to God.
Oh yeah, there is nothing in Genesis that says the snake was anything
more than a snake (well, a talking one...had legs at the time, too).
I don't think pointing out contradictions in STORIES is the best way
to show the error in theology: if they think a supernatural entity
kicked the first humans out of paradise because they bit into a
fruit that gave them special powers...well, they might not respond
well to reason and logic. :^) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Michael Bushnell writes;
Which is exactly what I pointed out. (Though I was wrong about your use
of the Creed, the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia in which I read about it
said the Orthodox do use the Creed minus the filioque. Apparently that
has changed.) The Athanasian Creed has always had the Filioque, the
Nicene - Constantinopolitan did not.
Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.
I might point out that the whole problem started over the difference in
ways of explaining the generation of the Blessed Trinity, the East
emphasizing the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son, and the West using proceeding from the Father and the
Son. In fact, some, such as Tertullian, used both formulations (see
below)
"Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do
call God and His Word, - the Father and and His Son, - two. For the
root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the
river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms,
but coherent ones. Anything which proceeds from another must
necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on
that account separated from it. Where there is second, however, there
are two; and where ther is third, there are three. The Spirit, then, is
third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit
of the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river,
and thrid from the sun is the apex of the ray."
-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8, 5 (about 213 AD)
and
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father
through the Son"
-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4, 1 (about 213 AD)
And as St. Thomas showed in his Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 36,
Articles 2 and 3, there is no contradiction between the two methods of
generation, and in fact, the two methods of reckoning the procession
emphasize what St. Augustine, among others taught, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, but He proceeds from the Father in
a more preeminent way.
"For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it
from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the
Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called
unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of
theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a
matter so great. The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy
Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives
to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit
proceeds jointly from both Father and Son. He would be called Son of
the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound
mind, they had both begotten Him. The Spirit was not begotten by each,
however, but proceeds from each and both."
-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)
So, in a sense, all of the formulations are correct (to the West at
least), because the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, but
in proceeding from the Son, the orgin of that procession is the
procession from the Father, so the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the
Father through the Son, but as all that the Son has is from the Father,
the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father, without any
mention of the Son being necessary.
In any case, I am happy to know that I follow in the beliefs of Pope
St. Leo I, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St.
Damsus I, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Ambrose
of Milan, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian, and others among the
Fathers, who all have very quotable quotes supporting the Catholic
position, which I enunciated above.
As for the issue of the adoption of another Creed being forbidden, I
will point out that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon both spoke
of the Creed of Nicea in their statement forbidding anyone "to produce,
write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by
the Fathers of Nicea." That Creed is a different Creed than that of
Constantinople, which is commonly called the Nicene Creed. Not of
course in that they were condemning the adoption of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, which is but an enlargement upon the Creed of
Nicea, but that they were condemning the impious opinions of Nestorious,
who had adopted a radically different Creed from the one used by the
Church, which among other things denied the procession of the Holy
Spirit form the Son. Thus, the additions of the Constantinopolitan
Creed were not thought to be in violation of this, and as the Council
Chalcedon also affirmed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Spirit from the Son, which Nestorius denied, they could hardly have been
against explaining in a fuller way the Creed, for they themselves
approved of previous additions to it. And if the further explanations
of the Creed made in Constantinople were not denigrating of the work
done by the Holy Fathers of Nicea or in any way heretical, it follows
that the Council of Toledo was fully able to add what was not disputed
by the faithful to the Creed so as to combat the impieties of the Arians
in Spain, because the filioque was not in dispute in the Church until
many years later under Photius and others. And that the filioque was
not disputed, I provide more quotes below.
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to
God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly
clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding
from it."
-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)
"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or of the Son only, but he
is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written: `If anyone
loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; and again it
is written: `If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of His.' When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the
Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel,
that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father,' and that `He shall
receive of mine and shall announce it to you.'"
-Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 1 (382 AD)
"The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the
appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to
the Father. For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: `the Spirit of the
Father,' and says of Him the `He proceeds from the Father,' and `will
receive of mine,' so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the
Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit
divine, ... of God, and He is God. For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of
the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like
soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father
and of the Son, a third by appelation....
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit
breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor
is the Spirit created."
-St. Epiphanius of Salamis (which is on Cyprus), The Man Well-Anchored,
8 and 75 (374 AD)
"Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is
it necessary to speak. Still, on account of those who do not know Him,
it is not possible for me to be silent. However it is necessary to
speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the
Son, His Sources."
-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)
Thus, as I have pointed out before, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa, Egypt,
Palastine, and the lands of the Greeks, all of Christnedom at that time,
all have Fathers who can be cited to show that they confess the doctrine
expressed by the filioque. I suggest to those of the Orthodox Church
that they come up with some of the Fathers, besides St. John of Damascus
who all will admit denied the filioque, to support their views. It is
not enough to bring up the "proceeds from the Father" line of the Creed
or the Gospel of John, for that says what we believe also. But it does
not say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only that He does
proceed from the Father. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases
: > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the
: > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same
: > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component'
: > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > such component. More detail in the next post.
: >
Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an
argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to
what end.
It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being
primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and
childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's
razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more
straightforeward and, apparently, simpler. Which is it to be - which
is the "non-essential", and how do you know?
Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to
its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a
lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...
This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out
tough. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is the problem. This is not hell, this is permanent death. It is
indeed what atheists (generally) expect and it is neither fair nor
unfair, it just is. You might as well argue about whether being made
mostly of carbon and water is "fair".
However, the atheists who claim that Hell is unfair are talking about
the fire and brimstone place of endless suffering, which necessarily
includes eternal existance (life, I dunno, but some sort of continuation);
not at all the same thing.
Granted, you clearly feel that hell=death, but this is not a univeral
sentiment as near as I can tell.
If *your* idea of God "condemns" heathens to ordinary death, I have no
problem with that. I do have a problem with the gods that hide from humans
and torture the unbelievers eternally for not guessing right.
[deletia- Hell, and Literalness.]
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I've sent the article. In terms of the group discussion, I wanted to point
out that "non-liberal education" (head in the sand) is not the same as
"abstinence education".
We had "non-liberal education" regarding drugs when I was a kid in the 60's,
which didn't do us a lot of good. But "abstinence education" regarding
drugs has proven effective, I think.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Maybe I'm a little tired but I can't seem to follow the logic here. If
whatever is held true on earth is held true in heaven how is it that a priest
(RC only apparently) is required.
In fact if I read the next verse correctly (Matthew 18:19) I understand that
for a marriage to take place only two are required to agree on earth touching
one thing and it shall be done.
Todd
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups
as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Stuff deleted
All five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the
death sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent,
and aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise
I agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief.
The Qur'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public
or private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not
punishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this
trend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but
historically they are the exception.
Cursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".
| 0 | alt.atheism |
How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed? Are there any Jews who
can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Jesus was born a Jew. We have biblical accounts of
both his mother's ancestry and his father's, both tracing back
to David. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that Jesus
was Semitic.
As an interesting aside, Jesus' being semitic makes him
neither "white" nor "black," and in some sense underscores the
point made earlier that his color was not important, it was his
message, his grace, and his divinity that we should concentrate
on.
Finally, I would direct anyone interested in African
involvement in the church to the account of the conversion of
the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 9 (I think it's chapter
9). This is one of the earliest conversions, and the eunuch,
treasurer to the queen of the Ethiopians, was definitely
African. Because "Ethiopia" at that time indicated a region
just south of Egypt, many also speculate that this man was not
only the first African Christian, but the first black Christian
as well.
God bless,
Charles Campbell
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I appreciated the follow-ups and replies to my earlier query. One reply, which
I have lost, suggested several parishes in New York that have good Masses, one
of which was Corpus Christi in downtown Manhattan. By coincidence, last week's
_America_, the national Jesuit magazine, carried an interview with Fr. Myles
Bourke, Corpus Christi's pastor emeritus. Fr. Bourke also directed the NT
translation in the New American Bible. He noted "...certain practices have
been introduced into the Mass in such a manner that an atmosphere of banality,
and sometimes of hilarity, has trivialized the liturgy." I note that at my
parents' parish on Easter, helium filled balloons were distributed at the
offertory, apparently to aid in understanding the word "risen". This was not a
kiddie mass, either, but the well-attended 11:00 Mass.
I wanted to note the generous spirit behind the replies. This newsgroup as a
whole offers generally moderate (perhaps because it's moderated) conversation
on topics that often lead people to extreme behavior (including myself).
Sometimes people do go over the top, but the remarkable thing is how that is
the exception, I think. Benefits of the doubt are generally granted. It seems
so...Christian? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Of course, I'd still recommend that Michael read _True and Reasonable_
by Douglas Jacoby.
Joe Fisher | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[insert deletion of unnecessary quote]
First of all, God does not take any sort of pleasure from punishing
people. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on
whom he will have compassion (Ex 33:19). However, if he enjoyed
punishing people and sending them to hell, then why would he send Jesus
to "seek and save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)?
You asked for it.
2 Peter 2:4-ff talks about how those who are ungodly are punished.
Matthew 25:31-46 is also very clear that those who do not righteous in
God's eyes will be sent to hell for eternity.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 states that those who cause trouble for the
disciples "will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord".
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 talks about those who refuse to love the truth
being condemned.
Revelation 21:6-8 talks about the difference between those who overcomes
and those who do not. Those who do not, listed in verse 8, will be in
the "fiery lake of burning sulfur".
Revelation 14:9-12 gives the indication that those who follow the beast
"will be tormented with burning sulfur" and there being "no rest day or
night" for them because of it.
Psalm 9:17: "The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that
forget God."
I think those should be sufficient to prove the point.
Joe Fisher
[In the following I'm mostly playing "devil's advocate". I'm not
advocating either position. My concern is that people understand that
it's possible to see these passages in different ways. It's possible
to see eternal destruction as just that -- destruction. Rev often
uses the term "second death". The most obvious understanding of that
would seem to be final extinction. The problem is that the NT speaks
both of eternal punishment and of second death. I.e. it uses terms
that can be understood either way. My concern here is not to convince
you of one view or the other, but to help people understand that
there's a wide enough variety of images that it's possible to
understand them either way. As Tom Albrecht commented, the primary
point is to do our best to keep people out of the eternal fire,
whatever the details. (To make things more interesting, Luke 20:35
implies that the damned don't get resurrected at all. Presumably
they just stay dead. -- yes I'm aware that it's possible to
understand this passage in a non-literal way.)
2 Peter 2:4-ff is talking about angels, and talks about holding them
in hell until the final judgement. This isn't eternal punishement.
Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sending the cursed into eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels. The fact that the fire is
eternal doesn't mean that people will last in its flames forever.
Particularly interesting is the comment about the fire having been
prepared for the devil and his angels. Rev 20 and 21 talk about the
eternal fire as well. They say that the beast and the false prophet
will be tormented forever in it. When talking about people being
thrown into it (20:13-14), it is referred to as "the second death".
This sounds more like extinction than eternal torment. Is is possible
that the fire has different effects on supernatural entities such as
the devil, and humans?
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 similarly, what is "everlasting destruction"?
This is not necessarily eternal torment. This one can clearly be
understood either way, but I think it's at least possible to think
that everlasting is being used to contrast the kind of destruction
that can occur in this life with the final destruction that occurs in
eternity.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 again talks about destruction.
Revelation 21:6-8: see comment above
Revelation 14:9-12 is probably the best of the quotes. Even there,
it doesn't explicitly say that the people suffer forever. It says
that the smoke (and presumably the fire) is eternal, and that
there is no respite from it. But it doesn't say that the people
are tormented forever.
Psalm 9:17: I don't see that it says anything relevant to this issue. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well said, Michael!
The Catholic traditon has a list of behaviours called the Spiritual
Works of Mercy:
admonish the sinner
instruct the ignorant
counsel the doubtful
comfort the sorrowful
bear wrongs patiently
forgive all injury
pray for the living and the dead (yes, I know there is some controversy
on this and I don't want to argue about it.)
These are all things that have a direct application to usenet. People
ask questions and express doubts. Some are in need of comfort or
prayers. Imagine what would happen to flame wars if we bore wrongs
patiently and forgave injuries. I would add that it is probably more
appropriate to do any admonishing by private email than publicly. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm not surprised that you see no wisdom in them. That is because your
premises are wrong from the word "Go". You claim that Christianity is
based on blind faith, but this simply is not so. Just look at the
current thread on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection for evidence
that Jesus was real and that he triumphed over death.
Furthermore, you say that Christians hold to their beliefs "regardless of
any evidence that you may find to the contrary." Without any evidence
to support your claim, this statement is little more than an ad hominem
argument.
Mind you, I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm merely pointing out
the intellectual dishonesty behind condemning Christianity in this fashion.
It would make much more sense if you could prove that all Christians do
base their belief on empty nothings, and that they do ignore all evidence to
the contrary. Only then can you expect your attack to make sense.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My, this distinction seems quite arbitrary.
Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered.
(Ps. 32:1).
and quoted by the apostle Paul:
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Rom. 4:6-8)
The biblical perspective seems to be that foregiveness and covering are
parallel/equivalent concepts in both testaments. The dispensational
distinction is unwarranted.
I'm sure Rex has Scripture to back this up. You're suggesting Jesus is
going to travel around dealing with individual violations of His law -- for
millions perhaps billions of people. Such activity for Moses the lawgiver
was considered unwise (cf. Ex. 18:13ff). It makes for interesting
speculation, though.
I'll leave comments on the so-called "bema seat" vs. "throne" judgments to
someone else. This also seems like more unnecessary divisions ala
dispensationalism.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That's the entire point!
Yes!
Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.
Huh? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.4
Constructing a Logical Argument
Although there is much argument on Usenet, the general quality of argument
found is poor. This article attempts to provide a gentle introduction to
logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.
Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise
OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning and determine whether
it is correct or not (valid or invalid). Of course, one does not need to
study logic in order to reason correctly; nevertheless, a little basic
knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an
argument.
Note that no claim is being made here about whether logic is universally
applicable. The matter is very much open for debate. This document merely
explains how to use logic, given that you have already decided that logic is
the right tool for the job.
Propositions (or statements) are the building blocks of a logical argument. A
proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example, "It is
raining" or "Today is Tuesday". Propositions may be either asserted (said to
be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning
of "deny", not the everyday meaning.
The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
arrangement of words used to express it. So "God exists" and "There exists a
God" both express the same proposition.
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of
statements to establish a definite proposition". An argument consists of
three stages.
First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to
continue are stated. These are called the premises of the argument. They
are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because",
"since", "obviously" and so on. (The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with
suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting suspicious
premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to
question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when
you've heard the explanation.)
Next, the premises are used to derive further propositions by a process known
as inference. In inference, one proposition is arrived at on the basis of
one or more other propositions already accepted. There are various forms of
valid inference.
The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further
inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or
"therefore".
Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument -- the proposition which
is affirmed on the basis of the premises and inference. Conclusions are often
indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude"
and so on. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference.
For example:
Every event has a cause (premise)
The universe has a beginning (premise)
All beginnings involve an event (premise)
This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)
Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with
respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.
Sometimes an argument will not follow the order given above; for example,
the conclusions might be stated first and the premises stated
afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if
sometimes a little confusing.
Recognizing an argument is much harder than recognizing premises or
conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some
statements look like arguments, but are not. For example:
"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar,
or the Son of God."
This is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert
the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its
conclusion. (It also suffers from a number of other logical flaws, but we'll
come to those later.)
Another example:
"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."
The phrase "do your duty to God" is not a proposition, since it is neither
true nor false. Therefore it is not a conclusion, and the sentence is not an
argument.
Finally, causality is important. Consider a statement of the form "A because
B". If we're interested in establishing A and B is offered as evidence, the
statement is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then
it is not an argument, it is an explanation.
For example:
"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not
start." -- This is an argument.
"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."
-- This is an explanation.
There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A
deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its conclusions
-- that is, an argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must
also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A valid
argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the
truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid;
however, we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other
arguments, and about how probable their premises are.
There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive
nor inductive. However, we will concentrate for the moment on deductive
arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.
It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly
counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
carefully.
Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an
argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
For example:
All insects have wings (premise)
Woodlice are insects (premise)
Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false.
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true.
The argument is thus entirely valid.
More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises,
as in:
All fish live in the sea (premise)
Dolphins are fish (premise)
Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)
However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid
inference from true premises. We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for
implication.
The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion.
"T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A=>B
----------------------------
F F T If the premises are false and the inference
F T T valid, the conclusion can be true or false.
T F F If the premises are true and the conclusion
false, the inference must be invalid.
T T T If the premises are true and the inference valid,
the conclusion must be true.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound
argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to confuse
valid arguments with sound arguments.
To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require
lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and probably
more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing
an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.
In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs
as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair
enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of
technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or
convincing.
So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical
argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect
when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being
misled by them. The following list of fallacies is not intended to be
exhaustive.
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (APPEAL TO FORCE)
The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the
threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It
is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right".
The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.
For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who
refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Argumentum ad hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".
The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying
to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or
people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.
For example:
"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."
Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by
showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of
reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not
argumentum ad hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's
testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (see elsewhere in this list).
The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person
argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of
the opponent's particular circumstances.
For example:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue
otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"
This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing
the opponent's argument.
This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For
example:
"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing.
You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's
adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is
also known as "poisoning the well".
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."
Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce
certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can
validly be used to infer that the event did not occur. For example:
"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water
to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water,
even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no
such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has
not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred,
however.
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is
committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted. For example:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me
guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To
commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by
appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language. For example:
"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying
to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more
likely it is that that proposition is correct.
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win
support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference
to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a
discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly
between:
"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent
computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black
hole radiation to be informed. Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable
whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.
THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a
particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is
inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the
specific. For example:
"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must
dislike atheists."
This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide
every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.
CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION
This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of accident. It occurs when one
forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not
representative of all possible cases.
For example:
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are
insincere."
SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation in which the features of that particular situation
render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a
hasty generalization.
NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
These are known as False Cause fallacies.
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the
cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For
example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God
cured me of the headache."
The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to
be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event. For
example:
"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid
atheism for the same reasons."
CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. It asserts that
because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves
no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.
PETITIO PRINCIPII
This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the
conclusion reached.
CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one
wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any
government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open
to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the
conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason
for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Another example is the classic:
"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the
Bible is true because it is the word of God."
COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION
This is the Fallacy of Presupposition. One example is the classic loaded
question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not
even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination,
when they ask questions like:
"Where did you hide the money you stole?"
Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:
"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or
"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"
IGNORATIO ELENCHI
The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion.
For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the
teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length
that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he
argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.
Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse
emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more
favourable light.
EQUIVOCATION
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument. For example:
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it
remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a
license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."
AMPHIBOLY
Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because
of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.
ACCENT
Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case,
the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are
emphasized. For example, consider:
"We should not speak ILL of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS"
FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION
One fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts
of something must apply to the whole. For example:
"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very
lightweight."
The other fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property of a number
of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example:
"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars
are less environmentally damaging than buses."
FALLACY OF DIVISION
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. Like
its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a
property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:
"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."
The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by
each item. For example:
"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT
This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful
events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the
first event.
For example:
"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin
and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot
legalize marijuana."
"A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "IS A TYPE OF" FALLACIES
These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way
similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar.
Examples:
"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of
history?"
"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a
form of Christianity?"
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of
animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"
AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A
is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for
implication given earlier.
DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B
is false". Again, the truth table for implication makes it clear why this is
a fallacy.
Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa; the latter has
the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does NOT in
fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is
invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
anything about B.
CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply
because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM
This is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitam; it is the fallacy of
asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer
than something else.
ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those
with more money are more likely to be right.
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or
more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the
argumentum ad crumenam.
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the
more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs
constant repetition in asserting something.
BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when
one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other
alternatives exist or can exist.
PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex
question.
NON SEQUITUR
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises
which are not logically connected with it.
RED HERRING
This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue
being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the
points being made, towards a different conclusion.
REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad
ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is
the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
STRAW MAN
The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it
can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position,
then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
THE EXTENDED ANALOGY
The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general
rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two
different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a
claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about
anti-cryptography legislation:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported
Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
TU QUOQUE
This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to
be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance:
"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So? You've been abusive too." | 0 | alt.atheism |
:
: >> Please enlighten me. How is omnipotence contradictory?
:
: >By definition, all that can occur in the universe is governed by the rules
: >of nature. Thus god cannot break them. Anything that god does must be allowed
: >in the rules somewhere. Therefore, omnipotence CANNOT exist! It contradicts
: >the rules of nature.
:
: Obviously, an omnipotent god can change the rules.
When you say, "By definition", what exactly is being defined;
certainly not omnipotence. You seem to be saying that the "rules of
nature" are pre-existant somehow, that they not only define nature but
actually cause it. If that's what you mean I'd like to hear your
further thoughts on the question. | 0 | alt.atheism |
And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as
someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as
atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,
as such, has no value. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[Dan's article deleted]
I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper.
The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section!
The perfect place for it ! :-) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
Moody Bible Institute:
There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.
The arrogance being attacked is that we "think we are the only ones who know
what the absolutes are". In short, many evangelicals claim that they are
infallible on the matter of religious texts.
In particular, the problem is one of epistemology. As a shorthand, you can
think of epistemology as "how do you know?" That question, it turns out, is
a very troubling one.
The problem with `absolute certainty' is that, at the bottom, at least some of
the thinking goes on inside your own head. Unless you can be certain that
everything which happens in your head is infallible, the reasoning you did to
discover a source of truth is in question.
And that means you do NOT have absolute justification for your source of
authority -- which means you do NOT have absolute certainty.
Let's take the specific example of Biblical Inerrancy, and a fictional
Inerrantist named Zeke. (The following arguments applies to the idea of
Papal Infallibility, too.)
Zeke has, we presume, spent some time studying the Bible, and history, and
several other topics. He has concluded, based on all these studies (and
possibly some religious experiences) that the Bible is a source of Absolute
Truth.
He may be correct; but even if he is, he cannot be certain that he is correct.
His conclusion depends on how well he studied history -- he may have made
mistakes, and the references he used may have contained mistakes. His
conclusion depends on how well he studied the Bible -- he may have made
mistakes. His conclusion depends on his own reasoning -- and he may have made
mistakes. (Noticing a common thread yet? 8-)
Everything about his study of the world that he did -- everything that
happened in his own head -- is limited by his own thinking. No matter what
he does to try and cover his mistakes, he can never be certain of his own
infallibility. As long as ANY PART of the belief is based on his own
reasoning, that belief cannot be considered "absolutely certain".
Zeke believes that he has found a source of absolute truth -- but that belief
is only as good as the quality of the search he made for it. Unless he can
say that his own reasoning is flawless, his conclusions are in doubt.
Any belief that you hold about absolute sources of truth depends in part on
your own thinking -- there is no way out of the loop. Only an infallible
thinker can have absolute certainty in all his beliefs.
This is easy to demonstrate. Let's go back to our shorthand method of doing
epistemology: "how do you know?" Imagine a hypothetical discussion:
A: The Bible is a source of absolute truth.
B: How do you know?
A: I studied history and the Bible and religious writings and church
teachings and came to this conclusion.
B: How do you know you studied history correctly?
A: Well, I double-checked everything.
B: How do you know you double-checked correctly?
A: Well, I compared my answers with some smart people and we agreed.
B: Just because some smart guy believes something that doesn't mean it is
true. How do you know THEY studied it correctly?
A: ...
And, as you see, B will eventually get A to the point where he has to say "I
can't prove that there are no mistakes" -- and as long as you may have made a
mistake, then you cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain.
There is no way out of the loop.
This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.
Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.
*
People who want to see this argument explained in great detail should try to
find _The Infallibility of the Church_, by George Salmon. He is attacking
the idea that the Pope can be knowably infallible (and he does so very well),
but the general argument applies equally well to the idea that the Bible is
knowably Inerrant.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Note that I said the fall of Rome, not of the Empire. The Roman Empire
lasted until 1453, with its transfered capital in Constantinople. The
main reason for it's fall was not so much the sack of Constantinople by
the men of the 4th Crusade (who were not Christians - they had been
excommunicated down to the last man after attacking the Christian city
of Zara in Croatia), but rather the disastorous defeat in the battle of
Mazinkert. After the Turks breached the frontier, it was only a matter
of time before the Empire fell, the inability of the Empire to hold onto
the rim of Anatolia, with the Ottomans and Rum Seljuks in the middle
should be quite obvious to any student of history. The sack of
Constantinople only hastened the inevitable along. For if the Greeks
had wanted to save their empire, why would they not cooperate with the
Crusaders when they came to do battle with the Saracens in the 1st-3rd
Crusades? Because of their obstinacy over cooperating with people they
considered heretics, even though those "heretics" were fighting for the
cause of the Empire and Christendom in doing battle with the Turkish
hordes in Anatolia, Edessa, Lebanon, Palastine, and Syria, the some
hordes who were to later sack Constantinople, and overrun a third of
Europe (the Balkans, Hungary, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
One of the things I find intersting about pagan beliefs is
their belief in a feminine deity as well as a masculine deity. Being
brought up in a Christian household, I often wondered if there was God
the Father, where was the mother? Everyone I know who has a father
usually as a mother. It just seemed rather unbalanced to me.
Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not
fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both
without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both
a masculine and feminine force. It provides a sense of balance I find
sorely lacking in most theologies, a lack which I think is responsible
for a lot of the unbalanced ways in which we see the world and treat
each other. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Please forgive all the inclusions. I suppose they are neccessary to follow
the argument.
My point is that "if life has meaning or importance then we should try
to find that meaning or importance" which is almost a tautology. (I hope
I'm not being too patronizing.) One term for that meaning is "Creator",
though that is not obvious from my above argument.
(It's more like "I think, therefore I am, therefore God is.")
Unfortunately the term "religious" is ambiguous to me in this context.
I could say that searching for meaning in life is by definition being
religious. I could say cult followers by definition have given up on
the search.
If you want "meaning" why not search for the truth?
So far, my understanding of Christianity is congruent with my understanding
of truth. There have been many before me who have come to conclusions
that are worded in ways that make sense to me. By no means does that imply
that I understand everything. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, it's important to realize that all actions have consequences,
and that "rules" were made for our own good. But to suggest that a
*disease* is a *punishment* for certain types of sin I think is
taking things much too far. If we got some kind of mouth disease
for lying, would any of us have mouths left? What if we developed
blindness every time we lusted after someone or something? I dare
say all of us would be walking into walls.
Yes, sin can have terrible consequences, but we need to be *real*
careful when saying that the consequences are a *punishment* for
sin. The Jews of Jesus's time believed that all sickness was the
result of a sin. Then Jesus healed a blind man and said that man was
blind to show the glory of God, not because of sin. If AIDS, or any
other STD is a *punishment" for sexual sin, what do we do with
diseases like cancer, or multiple sclerosis, which are just as
debilitating and terrible as AIDS, yet are not usually linked to a
specific behavior or lifestyle?
Atonement is *extremely* important, but I think you've missed the mark
about as far as you can by suggesting that AIDS is an atonement for sin.
The atonement for sin is JESUS CHRIST - period. This is the central
message of the Gospel. A perfect sacrifice was required for our sins,
and was made in the Lamb of God. His sacrifice atoned for *all* of
our sins, past present and future. God does not require pennance for
our sins, nor does he require us to come up with our own atonement. He
has graciously already done that for us. To suggest that AIDS or
some other consequence is an atonement for sins is literally spitting
on the sacrifice that Jesus made.
In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
I see things like this. Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
socially unacceptable diseases. Whether they got the disease through
their own actions or not is irrelevant. They still need Jesus Christ,
no more and no less than we do. I've said this before, but I think
it's a good analogy. People with AIDS are modern-day lepers. Jesus
healed many lepers. He can also heal people with AIDS, maybe not on
this earth, but in an ultimate sense. My next-door neighbor has AIDS.
She has recently come to have a much deeper and more committed
relationship with God. Her theology isn't what I would want it to be,
but God's grace covers her. The amazing thing is that she is gaining
weight (she's had the disease for over 2 years) and her health is
excellent apart from occassional skin rashes and such. She attributes
her improvement in her health to God's intervention in her life. Who
are we to suggest that her disease is some kind of punishment? It
seems to me that God is being glorified through her disease.
Paul Overstreet, the country singer, has a good song title that I
think applies to all of us - But for the Grace of God, There Go I
(or something like that).
May we all experience and accept God's grace.
===============================================================================
Paul Conditt Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research Phone: (512) 835-3422 FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
Laboratories Fedex: 10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas Postal: P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As a former Catholic and now as a very active Lutheran - it is some of the
"innovations" of the Mass which made me leave the Catholic Church and return
to the more traditional Catholic Chuch - the Lutherans.
I spent many years as a Lector reading the Passion parts as appropriate in
the Catholic Church and I found it very meaningful. Our Lutheran parish just
instituted the "Tenebrae" service for Good Friday and I was the lector for
a paraphrased Passion which was exceptional. I heard and learned things
that I have previously overlooked in the Gospels - yet those "facts" were
always there. As a matter of interest, the pastor and I were talking about
the differences between the RC and Lutheran Church during Holy Week over
breakfast Easter Sunday.
My wife is the member of the liturgy committee in the family (called music
and worship at our church). Our pastor does have control of this committee
but listens very carefully to the committee's suggestions. It needs a strong
hand to lead and guide, to keep the intent and the message clear and strong
as it should be through Lent and the rest of the liturgical year. Additional
reason for my leaving the Catholic faith - lack of any selfless spiritual
guidance by priests in my parishes. AKA "wishy-washy".
As you may gather from my comments, I feel that it is very important, ir-
regardless of denominational guidelines, to have a service/Mass which promotes
the true reason that we are gathered there. I am quite comfortable in a
traditional Mass, with receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, the Sacrament
of PENANCE (not Reconciliation), Stations of the Cross, so on and so forth.
The reason other types of Masses and parishes exist is because these feelings
are not shared by everyone.
I want more people to attend church and to find the Lord, but I don't want
them attending a show. It's not. My church works hard to have a meaningful
service during Lent on Wednesdays, but follow traditional Lutheran Book of
Worship guidelines. Where things are changed or omitted during Lent (such
as the Hymn of Praise) it is noted so that we are aware of the reasons that it
is Not there.
Quite frankly, it is very hard for a non-Catholic to go to a Mass and "fit in".
My dear wife never could (former Methodist). And Holy Week Masses and Vigils
would intimidate the daylights out of a non-Catholic. Those Catholics who
have beared with me this far understand what I mean.
Please keep in mind why we are there - to gather together in worship. Not
to worry about how something is done or not done. If there is something
wrong that you feel needs addressing, by all means talk to your priest or
pastor. I have only ever met one who wouldn't listen. They are there to
provide spiritual guidance and to help. Use them. My differences with
the Catholic Church are much more fundamental - but my decision to change
faiths was done with prayer, intervention, and sessions with priests and
ministers.
In Christ,
Kershner
--
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You
think its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because
psychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent
criminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think
it's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot.
Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society
are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the
panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one
things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not
due solely to sex out of marriage.
Jeff.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.
That is, it doesn't take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to
be immoral (in some cases). Also, I've said that morality is a remnant
of evolution. Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in
the animal kingdom.
But, this doesn't get us anywhere. Your particular beliefs are irrelevant
unless you can share them or discuss them... | 0 | alt.atheism |
[snip]
Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"
Q.E.D.
Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer =
the mind reels. Maybe they're all Bobby Mozumder.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have been looking for a book that specifically addresses
the mystery of God in the paradox. I have read some that touch
on the subject in a chapter but would like a more detailed read.
Is anyone aware of any books that deal with this subject.
Please e-mail me. Thanks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Subject pretty much says it all - I'm looking for Johnny Hart's (creator
of the B.C. comic stip) mailing address.
For those of you who haven't seen them, take a look at his strips for Good
Friday and Easter Sunday. Remarkable witness!
If anyone can help me get in touch with him, I'd really appreciate it!
I've contacted the paper that carries his strip and -- they'll get back to
me with it!
Thanks for your help,
Dave Arndt
St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church
St. Peter, MN 56082 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree with Carol here. Determining absolutes is, practically speaking, a
waste of time. And we easily forget that relative truth is, in fact relative.
For example, I recently was asking some children the question "What temperature
does water boil at?" I got the answer 212 degrees consistently. I asked
if they knew what scale, and was told "It's just 212 degrees. Any scale.
That's what all thermometers say." Well, that's sincere, and may be
true in the experience of the speaker, but it is simply wrong. IT is NOT
an absolute truth. Similarly, Scripture is full of Truth, which we should
nurture and cherish, but trying to determine which parts are Absolute Truth
and which parts are the manifestations of that in the context of the time
and culture in which the text was penned is missing the point. Then religion
easily becomes an intellectual head-trip, devoid of the living experience of
the indwelling Trinity and becomes dead scholasticism, IMO.
[example of head-covering in Church deleted]
This was a good example. There may be an Absolute Truth behind the
writing, but the simplest understanding of the passage is that the
instructions apply to the Corinthians, and not necessarily elsewhere.
The instructions may reflect Absolute Truth in the context of first
century culture and the particular climate at Corinth, which was having
a LOT of trouble with order. Is it Absolute Truth to me? No. And I
see no compelling, or even reasonable, reason that it should be.
Even the most die-hard literalists do not take all of the Bible literally.
I've yet to meet anyone who takes the verse "blessed is he who takes your
babies and smashes their heads against the rocks" literally. The Bible
was not printed or handed to us by God with color codings to tell us
what parts should be interpreted which way.
I agree. Very few. And even if we knew them, personally, we may not be
able to express that in a way that still conveys Absolute Truth to another.
The presence of absence of Absolutes may not make any difference, since I
know I can never fully apprehend an Absolute if it walks up and greets me.
I can't prove the existence of absolutes. I can only rely upon MY experience.
I also trust God's revelation that WE cannot fully comprehend the infinite.
Therefore we can't comprehend the Absolutes. So I don't need them.
I can never know the essence of God, only the energies by and through which
God is manifested to God's creation. So the reality can be that there ARE
absolutes, but it is of no practical importance. It's like claiming that the
original scriptural autographs were perfect, but copies may not be. Swell.
Who cares? It doesn't affect me in any practical useful way. I might as
well believe that God has made a lot of electric blue chickens, and that they
live on Mars. Maybe God did. So what? Is that going to have ANY effect on
how I deal with my neighbor, or God? Whether or not I go to this or that
cafeteria for lunch? No.
This attitude leads many non-Christians to believe that ALL Christians
are arrogant idiots incapable of critical reasoning. Christianity is true,
wonderful and sensible. It appeals to Reason, since Reason is an inner
reflection of the Logos of God. Explanations that violate that simply
appear to be insecure authoritarian responses to a complex world.
NOTE: I'm NOT claiming there is no place for authority. That'd be silly.
There IS a world of difference between authoritative and authoritarian.
Authoritative is en expression of authority that respects others.
Authoritarian is en expression of authority that fails to do that,
and is generally agressive. Good parents (like God) are authoritative.
Many Christians are simply authoritarian, and, not surprisingly, few
adults respond to this treatment.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The existence of repeated earth lives and destiny (karma) does not
mean that everything that happens is predetermined by past deeds.
There is an oriental view of it that tends in that direction, but I
did not subscribe to that view. God may choose one individual over
another as the fit instrument for his plans, but that does not
preclude that the development of that individual into what he is in
this earthly life is not the result of a longer course of development.
I do not, and Rudolf Steiner did not, subscribe to the oriental view
of an inexorable, mechanistic karma determining everything that
befalls one. This is a kind of shriveled caricature of a much greater
law in the context of which the deed of Christ on Golgotha and the
ultimate salvation and freedom of the human being as a working of
Christ can be seen as the master theme and, indeed, a new impulse that
was completely free of karma. Christ incarnated only once in the
flesh, and in that he had no debt of karma or sin. The oriental
concepts of reincarnation and karma, which are even more trivialized
and mechanized in some new age teachings, incorrectly assume Jesus
Christ to have been the reincarnation of a master. avatar, etc.
Their teaching of reincarnation and karma also has no concept the
continuing individuality from one life to the next (e.g. Buddhism).
More important, they have no concept of the resurrection of the body,
the ultimate continuity of the whole human being -- to ultimate
resurrection and judgement on the Last Day.
There is another biblical passage that also has a bearing. It is the
tenth chapter of John, devoted almost entirely to the man born blind.
Clearly here, Jesus tells the disciples that it was not his past karma
or that of his parents that led to his blindness, but rather that a
new impulse is to be revealed through him. But note that he does not
refute the disciples' question. In fact, they ask it as a matter of
course, the question being stated as if it were self evident that only
one of two possibilities existed - it was either the sins of the man
himself, obviously not in this incarnation, or the sins of his
parents. The fact that they even asked about the first possibility at
all indicates an awareness of the idea on their part and the form of
Christ's answer indicates that he did not disagree with it.
There is also Matthew 11:14, where Jesus says straight out about John
the Baptist,
"If you care to accept it, he himself is Elias, who was to come."
This also emphasizes that the Gospels do not have a positive teaching
either way about reincarnation -- or, in fact, about what happens to
the human being at all between death and the Last Day. Even Jesus did
not push this teaching on people who were not ready to embrace it ("If
you care to accept it"). So I took care to point out, not that the
Bible teaches reincarnation but that it does not deny it either, and
that much in both scripture and fundamental Christian doctrine becomes
understandable if reincarnation is understood in the right way. I
pointedly used "repeated earth lives" to distinguish a little from the
oriental doctrines usually associated with the word "reincarnation".
The phrase is Rudolf Steiner's (wiederholte Erdenleben). He noted too
that the idea needed to arise as a new insight in the west, completely
free from eastern tradition. It did in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the most important expression of it being Lessing's "The
Education of the Human Race".
To return to your original point, Paul's statement about Jacob and
Esau does not contradict the idea of repeated earth lives and karma.
And both of these principles receive their fulfillment in the
incarnation, death, and resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus
Christ, in my view. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Greetings and Salutations!
I would like to get in touch with people who
(a) consider themselves Christians (you define it), and
(b) are in the Martial Arts
Some topics for discussion:
- your particular martial art
- your view of the relationship between
Christianity and your art
- your view of the relationship between
*your* Christianity and your art
- why should a Christian participate in MA
- why shouldn't a Christian participate in MA
- Biblical views of MA; pro or con.
For example, I heard from one fellow:
"...I tried the Karate for Christ thing and it wasn't for me..."
- why or why not?
As an aside, I am involved (in *NO* official way) with an
organization called the Christian Black Belt Association and
I would also like to distribute info regarding upcoming events
to *those who are interested*. No, you won't be put on any
"mailing list" nor will your name be "sold".
However, if you ARE intested in an email list, let me know.
I am interested in email replies ONLY as this is cross-posted
to groups I don't normally read. If anyone wants a summary
or, of course, on-going discussion, then let me know.
Shalom,
Robert Switzer
ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sure. Yes, I did. You see I don't think that rape and murder should
be dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for
leniency's sake, apparently think that people should simply be
told the "did a _bad_ thing."
Misjudgments should be avoided as much as possible.
I suspect that it's pretty unlikely that, given my requirement
of repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely.
Really? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it.
Again, not all of the Orient follows the Qur'an. So you'll have to do
better than that.
Sorry, you haven't "put out" enough.
This is an argument for why _you_ don't like religions that suppress
sex. A such it's an irrelevant argument.
If you'd like to generalize it to an objective statement then
fine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement
that sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments").
The urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong
measures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so
strong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to
find a marriage partner.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
: In article <11838@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
: > Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
: > originate with C.S. Lewis? Who's this Campollo fellow anyway?
: I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do
: believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original
: Christians (Origen?).
There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that
I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than
anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement
can be properly analysed in this venue. | 0 | alt.atheism |
.
.
.
Why do you assume that Jesus's plea to His Father "to let this cup
pass from Him", was merely a plea to escape death? When I look at
Jesus in the garden, I see a Man-God, who all His life had had the
presense of His Father with Him. As a result, He knew every
detail about His death long before the Agony in the Garden. But
as that hour approached, He felt abandoned by His Father, His
presense diminishing with each passing minute. In addition, it
was brought more and more to Jesus's attention (the betrayal of
Judas was probably a big impact) that His suffering would be to no
avail for many people, especially those who would reject Him, not
only then but in the future. I truly believe that the majority of
Jesus's suffering was mental and spiritual, while the physical
portion was only the tip of the iceburg.
BTW, we know from John's account that Jesus *shunned* becomming an earthly
king. From John:
JOH 6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they
began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the
world."
JOH 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by
force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
This does not seem like a man who would regret not becoming an
earthly king. No, Jesus knew His mission was to redeem all (Jew &
Gentile) people and establish His kingdom in the hearts of those
who would believe. This was utterly mistaken, much to Jesus's
dismay, as an aspiration to some earthly kingdom. But He knew
what His Father's will was and followed it obediently even in the
darkness of His Passion.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, I've said that when an innocent person has been executed, this is
objectively a murder. However, who is at blame is another question.
It seems that the entire society that sanctions any sorts of executions--
realizing the risks--is to blame.
Yes, but there is also a probablity that you will kill someone doing
any raondom activity. Presumably, you had not isolated yourself totally
from the rest of society because of this.
And I argue that our law system is a similar risk. Perhaps an innocent
person will be punished someday, but we work to prevent this. In fact,
many criminals go free as a result of our trying to prevent punishment
of innocents.
But, such accidents are to be totally expected, given the numner of vehicals
on the road. Again, the blame is on society.
Yes, but the state is not at fault in such a case. The state can only do
so much to prevent false witnesses.
Okay, so this is what you call murder. But, the question is whether or not
all such "murders" are wrong. Are you saying that all taking of human life
is wrong, no matter what the circumstances?
But, this is basically how it works. Society accepts the risk that an
innocent person will be murdered by execution. And, every member of
society shares this blame. And, most people's definitions of murder
include some sort of malicious intent, which is not involved in an
execution, is it?
Murder violates the golden rule. Executions do not, because by allowing
it at all, society implicitly accepts the consequences no matter who the
innocent victim is.
Reading the minds of the jury would certainly tell whether or not a conviction
was moral or not. But, in an objective system, only the absolute truth
matters, and the jury system is one method to approximate such a truth. That
is, twelve members must be convinced of a truth.
But then, if we read the minds of these people, we would know that the
conviction was unfair.
Yes, while we could objectively determine the difference (if we knew all
possible information), we can't always determine the difference in our
flawed system. I think that our system is almost as good as possible,
but it still isn't objectively perfect. You see, it doesn't matter if
we *know* it is fair or not. Objectively, it is either fair or it is not.
But what we know has no effect on an objective system.
Why are you so sure?
Why is *your* reality important?
But, we can assume that the system is fairly decent, at least most likely.
And, you realize that the correctness of our system says nothing about a
totally ideal and objective system.
Well, we can have an ideal system, but the working system can not be ideal.
We can only hope to create a system that is as close an approximation to
the ideal system as possible.
Yes, we all bear the responsibility. Most people seem willing to do this.
We must realize the consequences of all our actions. Why do you keep
separating the justice system from the pack?
I don't think our country has an objective system, but I think such an
objective system can exist, in theory. Without omniscience, an objective
system is not possible in practice. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Just finished reading Burton Mack's new book, _The Lost Gospel, Q and Christian
Origins_. I thought it was totally cool. Anyone else read it and want to
talk? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is becoming a tiresome statement. Coming from you it is
a definition, not an assertion:
Islam is good. Belief in Islam is good. Therefore, being a
believer in Islam can produce only good...because Islam is
good. Blah blah blah.
That's about as circular as it gets, and equally meaningless. To
say that something produces only good because it is only good that
it produces is nothing more than an unapplied definition. And
all you're application is saying that it's true if you really
believe it's true. That's silly.
Conversely, you say off-handedly that _anything_ can happen under
atheism. Again, just an offshoot of believe-it-and-it-becomes-true-
don't-believe-it-and-it-doesn't.
Like other religions I'm aquainted with, Islam teaches exclusion and
caste, and suggests harsh penalties for _behaviors_ that have no
logical call for punishment (certain limits on speech and sex, for
example). To me this is not good. I see much pain and suffering
without any justification, except for the _waving of the hand_ of
some inaccessible god.
By the by, you toss around the word knowledgable a bit carelessly.
For what is a _knowledgeable believer_ except a contradiction of
terms. I infer that you mean believer in terms of having faith.
And If you need knowledge to believe then faith has nothing
to do with it, does it? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I don't know why it is so obvious. We are not speaking of acts of the
flesh. We are just speaking of emotions. Emotions are not of themselves
moral or immoral, good or bad. Emotions just are. The first step is
not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
accepts us. It seems that Paul's anger he has accepted and channeled
it to a plea to all of us to refrain from passing judgement on those
afflicted with a disease and to reach out to others. Give in? Calling
his arguments foolish, belittling them to only quarrels, avoiding action
because of fear to give others a bad feeling, he's not forgiving?
Re-think it, Aaron. Don't be quick to judge. He has forgiven those with
AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
appropriate choices for action on such feelings. He has not given in to
his anger. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.?
Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life
will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final
hours."
Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose
the punishment. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Considerably better than I feel about, say, the Punic Wars, or the
Peloponnesian War (spelling optional), or almost any other event in
classical history. How close to the events do you think the oldest
extent manuscripts are in those cases?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I differ with our moderator on this. I thought the whole idea of God coming
down to earth to live as one of us "subject to sin and death" (as one of
the consecration prayers in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) puts it) was
that Jesus was tempted, but did not succumb. If sin is not part of the
basic definition of humanity, then Jesus "fully human" (Nicea) would not
be "subject to sin", but then the Resurrection loses some of its meaning,
because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin. To distinguish
between "human" and "fallen human" makes Jesus less like one of us at the
time we need him most.
First, the Monophysites inherited none of Nestorius's version -- they
were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him. Second, the historical
record suggests that the positions attributed to Nestorius were not as
extreme as his (successful) opponents (who wrote the conventional history)
claimed. Mainly Nestorius opposed the term Theotokos for Mary, arguing
(I think correctly) that a human could not be called Mother of God. I mean,
in the Athanasian Creed we talk about the Son "uncreate" -- surely even
Arians would concede that Jesus existed long before Mary. Anyway, Nestorius's
opponents claimed that by saying Mary was not Theotokos, that he claimed
that she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, which would require
two seperate and distinct natures. The argument fails though, because
Mary simply gave birth to Jesus, who preexisted her either divinely,
if you accept "Nestorianism" as commonly defined, or both natures intertwined,
a la Chalcedon.
Second, I am not sure that "Nestorianism" is not a better alternative than
the orthodox view. After all, I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation
that Jesus's human nature was in heaven; likewise post-Ascension. I think
rather that God came to earth and took our nature upon him. It was a seperate
nature, capable of being tempted as in Gethsemane (since I believe the divine
nature could never be tempted) but in its moments of weakness the divine nature
prevailed.
Comments on the above warmly appreciated.
Jason Albert
[There may be differences in what we mean by "subject to sin". The
original complaint was from someone who didn't see how we could call
Jesus fully human, because he didn't sin. I completely agree that
Jesus was subject to temptation. I simply object to the idea that by
not succumbing, he is thereby not fully human. I believe that you do
not have to sin in order to be human.
I again apologize for confusing Nestorianism and monophysitism. I
agree with you, and have said elsewhere, that there's reason to think
that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in
fact heretical. There are scholars who maintain that Nestorius was
not Nestorian. I have to confess that the first time I read some of
the correspondence between Nestorius and his opponents, I thought he
got the better of them.
However, most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to
Chalcedon was an advance, and that Nestorius was at the very least
"rash and dogmatic" (as the editor of "The Christological Controversy"
refers to him) in rejecting all approaches other than his own. As
regular Usenet readers know, narrowness can be just as much an
impediment as being wrong. Furthermore, he did say some things that I
think are problematical. He responds to a rather mild letter from
Cyril with a flame worthy of Usenet. In it he says "To attribute also
to [the Logos], in the name of [the incarnation] the characteristics
of the flesh that has been conjoined with him ... is, my brother,
either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the
Greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and
Apollinaris and the others. Those who are thus carried away with the
idea of this association are bound, because of it, to make the divine
Logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some
degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his
fearfulness ... These things are taken falsely when they are put off
on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us
who perpetrate the falsehood."
It's all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between
humanity and divinity. But the whole concept of incarnation is based
on exactly the idea that the divine Logos does in fact have "to some
degree" a part in being born, growing up, and dying. Of course it
must be understood that there's a certain indirectness in the Logos'
participation in these things. But there must be some sort of
identification between the divine and human, or we don't have an
incarnation at all. Nestorius seemed to think in black and white
terms, and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this
area.
You say "I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation that Jesus's
human nature was in heaven." I don't think that's required by
orthodox doctrine. It's the divine Logos that is eternal. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means. Where does
the authority for a belief come from? Nowhere, for a belief is itself
authoratative. If I produce authority for a belief, where will I find
authority for my belief in the legitimacy of the authority. In short,
the mind has to start somewhere. (By the way, the majority of Christians,
i.e. Catholics, believe in the authority of the Church, and derive the
authority of the Bible from its acceptance by the Church.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
AH! But what, exactly, is "inherently abhorrent" and WHY is it so?
What you're saying is, in effect, "I think some things are repulsive,
and I know a whole bunch of other people who agree with me, so they
should be deemed absolutely immoral now and forever, period".
Which in and of itself is nice enough; to some extent I agree with
you. But I do _not_ agree that things are 'inherently' or 'absolutely'
immoral; they are labeled 'immoral' each for its own good reason, and if
the reason can even theoretically change, then so can the label.
[...]
No it doesn't. Humans are to some extent similar, because we all
belong to the same species; that that species has evolved is another
story altogether. To a certain extent evolution can even lend credence
to moral absolutism (of a flavour).
[...]
You're saying morality is what'll keep society alive and kicking.
It is, I think, up to a point; but societies are not all alike, and
neither are their moralities.
Similar != identical.
No, it's falsifiable through finding someoe who was "created
different", whatever that might be in the "real" world.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
>[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.]
I'll start with a parable.
A Christian woman hires a carpenter to build her a birdhouse. When he comes
over, they begin talking about religion. "So you believe that you understand
God?" he asks. "Yes, I do," she replies. "Then have him build you the
birdhouse." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have found that this isn't a very effective argument. Most atheists are
perfectly willing to acknowledge the existence and ministry of Jesus--but are
quite capable of rationalizing the miracles and the resurrection into
misunderstandings, hoaxes, or simple fabrications. They can always make an
analogy with the _Iliad_, a book that tells the story of the historical Trojan
War, but also talks about gods and goddesses and their conversations.
I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of
Christianity through argument. We have to help foster faith and an
understanding of God. I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here who
were led to Christianity by argument? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
don't search for it, then we have wasted our potentially meaningful lives.
Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.
What if you woke up at a party, with no memory, and everyone was discussing
who the host might be? There might not be a host, you say. I say let's go
find him, the party's going to be over sometime, maybe he'll let us stay.
Because we recognize our own mortality we have to find the "why".
This is a good point. But more of a good point for studying religion
than ignoring it. Some Christians disagree with me, but it is worthwhile
to study different religions and philosophies and glean the truth from
them. To quote (of course out of context) "Test everything and keep what is
true." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I assume you are posting to encourage comments - how much history has
Tony Campello read? Not much it seems.
It is good to hear that there are a few reasonable Christians about.
If only those christian "scientists" would take note.
(In Australia there is a very strong movement, a bunch of christian
scientists who believe that every single event in the bible is exactly
true, and that there is a rational explanation for it all that can be justified
by using the laws of physics. For example, there are a few chaps who are
trying to prove that the age of the universe is 6000 years old, and that the
error in conventional calculations is the result of the fact that the speed
light has been rapidly decaying over the years, and this has not been
accounted for. :-] )
Or (of course), that he never existed, and the bible was a story, and was never
intended to become a manifesto for a billion people. Did Tony follow that one
up?
Millions of people have "died for a lie". This point is difficult to
substantiate since it is not well defined (a great many religious arguments
work in that way), but consider the many Aztec warriors who sacrificed
themselves to their gods in the belief that this act would bring them victory
of the Spanish invaders. The list is endless. The Aztecs lost, BTW.
That is perfectly reasonable, but it is not grounds for me (or anyone)
to become a christian. More to the point, it does not add weight to
the claim that Jesus was the "real thing".
Have you ever seen a documentary about the rise of Nazi Germany? More to the
point, did Tony mention this? One could hardly call Werner Heisenberg and his
many colleagues fools, or illogical men, their support of Hitler was based
(I presume) upon an emotional issue rather than a rational agreement with
his principles. Obviously my argument is invalid if Tony thought that Hitler
was sane....
Hmmm.... I don't think his arguments warrant the use of a "Therefore..."
This is (unfortunately) what alot of religious discussions I have had with
people result in - quoting the bible. The only reasonable way I think
people can look at the bible is to treat the stories as some sort of
metaphorical representation of the messages that the authors were trying to
present. If someone tries to interpret parts of the bible literally, he or
she will end up in all sorts of shit.
Tony's argument would be perfectly reasonable for people who believe
the events described in the bible took place, but to convince someone,
who thinks the bible is total fiction, that Jesus is real by quoting the
book is totally pointless. For example, in mathematics you cannot say "a is
equal to b because a is equal to b".
That would possibly explain why there have so many people being killed
in religious wars, and why there are hundreds of different versions all
claiming to be correct.
It
I think if you posted this part to alt.religion you would get more flames
than here :-). I have never really understood why the emotional sentiments
of a stranger should be of interest to other people.
Someone famous said that there two evils in life, polititians and churchs, one
rules by fear of the living, the other by fear of the dead. If I am pressed I
could probably find the exact quotation. | 0 | alt.atheism |
According to what I have read on Biblical idioms, speaking "in X's
name" is a standard Aramaic/Hebrew legal idiom for what we today
would call Power of Attorney. A person from Jesus' culture authorized
to conduct business "in John's name" had full authority over John's
financial affairs, but was held under a solemn fiduciary obligation to
work only for John's benefit and consonant with John's wishes. It was
not required for the steward to preface each business transaction with
"in John's name"; it was sufficient to have valid power of attorney
and be operating in good faith. (Note the overlap here between legal
and religious definitions of "faith".)
With this cultural background, praying "in Jesus' name" does not
mandate a particular verbal formula; rather it requires that the
petitioner be operating faithfully and consciously within an analogous
"fiduciary" relationship with Jesus and for the purposes of His
Kingdom. The message of "praying in Jesus' name" is thus closely
aligned with the parable of the talents and other passages about God's
delegation of Kingdom business to his stewards, both resources and
responsibilities. This idea of praying "in Jesus' name" is not only
present but prominent in the Lord's Prayer, although the verbal
forumula is absent.
The act of praying the words "In Jesus' Name" may be beneficial if
they cause us to clarify the relationship of our requests to the
advancement of God's Kingdom. For that reason, I'm not quite ready
to say that the praying the formula is without meaning.
Prayers to God for other purposes (desperation, anger, thanksgiving,
etc.) don't seem to be in this category at all, whether uttered by
Christian or non-Christian, whether B.C. or A.D. (that's B.C.E. or
C.E. for you P.C. :-). I don't see anything in Christ's words to
contradict the idea that God deals with all prayers according to His
omniscience and grace.
Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If you force me to do something, am I morally responsible for it?
Well, make up your mind. Is it to be "instinctive not to murder"
or not?
It's not even correct. Animals of the same species do kill
one another.
Sigh. I wonder how many times we have been round this loop.
I think that instinctive bahaviour has no moral significance.
I am quite prepared to believe that higher animals, such as
primates, have the beginnings of a moral sense, since they seem
to exhibit self-awareness.
So what? Are you trying to say that some killing in animals
has a moral significance and some does not? Is this your
natural morality>
Are you blind? What do you think that this sentence means?
"There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not
just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."
What would that imply?
I find the fact that they do to be significant. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You assume this because you believe in a designing creator,
and you observe our ability to procreate...
.... But then you observe our ability to modify fertility
through intelligence & experiment, and draw no similar conclusions
about God designing us for scientific inquiry & the use of the
technology that it produces. How is it that one ability is "obviously
from God", and the other not?
I want to know the truth, and hold the Truth as the most
basic of all ethical values, because correct moral judgement
relies on knowing the truth, not vice versa. Moralities that
assert that assent to a belief is a moral choice, and not
compelled by evidence inevitably cut off the limb they sit upon.
Falsification of evidence, conscious and unconscious, follows
corrupting both the intellect and the heart.
If there is a God, he has nothing to fear from truth.
As to imaginary gods and there followers: Be afraid. Be very
afraid. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Oh contrer mon captitan! There is a way. Certainly it is not by human reason.
Certainly it is not by human experience. (and yet it is both!) To paraphrase
Sartre, the particular is absurd unless it has an infinite reference point. It
is only because of God's own revelation that we can be absolute about a thing.
Your logic comes to fruition in relativism.
Ah, now it is clear. Ludwig was a desciple of Russell. Ludwig's fame is often
explained by the fact that he spawned not one but two significant movements in
contemporary philosophy. Both revolve around Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus
('21) and Philosophical Investigation ('53). Many of Witt's comments and
implicit conclusions suggest ways of going beyond the explicit critique of
language he offers. According to some of the implicit suggestions of Witt's
thought, ordinary language is an invaluable resource, offering a necessary
framework for the conduct of daily life. However, though its formal features
remain the same, its content does not and it is always capable of being
transcended as our experience changes and our understanding is deepened, giving
us a clearer picture of what we are and what we wish to say. On Witt's own
account, there is a dynamic fluidity of language. It is for this reason that
any critique of language must move from talking about the limits of language to
talking about its boundaries, where a boundary is understood not as a wall but
a threshold.
vonWrights's comment that Witt's "sentences have a content that often lies
deep beneath the surface of language." On the surface, Witt talks of the
insuperable position of ordinary language and the necessity of bringing
ourselves to accept it without question. At the same time, we are faced with
Witt's own creative uses of language and his concern for bringing about changes
in our traditional modes of understanding. Philosophy, then, through more
perspicacious speech, seeks to effect this unity rather than assuming that it
is already functioning. Yes? The most brilliant of scientists are unable to
offer a foundation for human speech so long as they reject Christianity! In his
Tractatus we have the well nigh perfect exhibition of the nature of the impasse
of the scientific ideal of exhaustive logical analysis of Reality by man.
Perfect language does not exist for fallen man, therefore we must get on about
our buisness of relating Truth via ordinary language.
This is why John's Gospel is so dear to most Christians. It is so simple in
it conveyance of the revealation of God, yet so full of unlieing depth of
understanding. He viewed Christ from the OT concept of "as a man thinketh, so
he is." John looked at the outward as only an indicator of what was inside,
that is the consciousness of Christ. And so must we. Words are only vehicals
of truth. He is truth. The scriptures are plain in their expounding that
there is a Truth and that it is knowable. THere are absolutes, and they too
are knowable. However, they are only knowable when He reveals them to the
individual. There is, and we shouldn't shy from this, a mysticism to
Christianity. Paul in ROm 8 says there are 3 men in the world. There is the
one who does not have the Spirit and therefore can not know the things of the
Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) and there is the one who has the Spirit and has
the capacity to know of the Truth, but there is the third. THe one who not
only has the Spirit, but that the Spirit has him! Who can know the deep things
of God and reveal them to us other than the Spirit. And it is only the deep
things of GOd that are absolute and true.
There is such a thing as true truth and it is real, it can be experienced
and it is verifiable. I disagree with Dr Nancy's Sweetie's conclusion because
if it is taken to fruition it leads to relativism which leads to dispair.
"I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would
say unto me." Job 23ff
--Rex | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have never been to Wisconsin, though I have been to
neighbor Minnesota. Being a child of the Middle Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA)
I found that there were few states in the provences that stood
out in this youngster's mind: California, Texas, and Florida to
name the most obvious three. However, both Minnesota and Wisconsin
stuck out, solely on the basis of their politics. Both have
always translated to extremely liberal and progressive states.
And my recent trip to Minnestoa last summer served to support that
state's reputation. My guess is that Wisconsin is probably the
same. At least that was the impression the people of Minnesota left
with me about their neighbors.
The only question in my head about Wisconsin, though, is
whether or not there is a cause-effect relationship between
cheese and serial killers :) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Responding to the moderator:
Yes, I agree. What I'm trying to point out is that, in matters of faith
(i.e. tenets which are not logically persuasive), one may be convinced
of the truth of certain things through, for instance, personal
revelation. And its certainly fine to share that revelation or those
beliefs with others. And I don't think that its arrogant, persay, to
accepts matters of pure faith as truth for oneself. Where I think the
conflict arises is in assuming that, where disagreements on beliefs
arise, all others *must* have been given the same truth, and that God
must reveal His truth to everyone in such a way that all would
honestly agree. I think this can lead to the conclusion that anyone
who disagrees with you are being sinful or dishonest; that they are
rejecting something they *know* to be truth because it is inconvenient
for them, or because they wish to spurn God.
I would say that this is equivalent to assuming that *all* truths one
holds are universal and absolute. And the problem I see with this is
that it negates the individuality of humans and their relationships with
God. This does not mean there is no absolute truth; just that some areas
of doctrinal disagreement may be areas where God has not established or
revealed that truth.
--
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Science is the process of modeling the real world based on commonly agreed
interpretations of our observations (perceptions).
Values can also refer to meaning. For example in computer science the
value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE. Science is based on commonly agreed
values (interpretation of observations), although science can result in a
reinterpretation of these values.
The values underlaying science are not objective since they have never been
fully agreed, and the change with time. The values of Newtonian physic are
certainly different to those of Quantum Mechanics. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."
If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,
etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society
into chaos. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[...]
Note that I _never_ said that depression and the destruction of the
nuclear family is due _solely_ to extra-marital sex. I specifically
said that it was "a prime cause" of this, not "the prime cause" or "the
only cause" of this -- I recognize that there are probably other factors
too, but I think that extra-marital sex and subsequent destabilization
of the family is probably a significant factor to the rise in
psychological problems, including depression, in the West in the 20th
century. | 0 | alt.atheism |
some deleted
Dear Will,
I've never replied on this thing before so I hope it gets thru ok.
I had a few thoughts!:
"Faith on its own, if not accompanied by action is dead" - James 2:17
Faith is both belief and action.
If I say that I am a great swimmer but I never go swimming, am I really a
swimmer? and will people believe that I am?
Likewise if I say I'm a Christian but I never talk to God, am I really a
Christian? My faith is demonstrated by my action. The fact that we talk to
God proves we have faith. Satan believes in God but does not follow Him!
In a similar vein, I have recently been challenged by 1John2:3-6
v3 says "We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands"
I find this verse quite encouraging as it could imply that 'if we have
come to know Him, then we'll obey His commands' cos He lives within us and
we cannot help but obey what He says.
I tend to feel that as we daily submit ourself to God He will keep changing
us into the likeness of Jesus and His fruit and works will be automatically
produced in our lives.
Hope this helps. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Anything that does not bring me closer to God is a sin.
(If you think this is too strict, just consider how ambiguous it is.)
This implies that staying the same is a sin. A Christian should
never be satisfied. It does not imply that
having fun is a sin. It does not imply that sleeping is a sin.
It does imply that I sin every day.
A perhaps simpler definition:
Anything that is counter to the two Great Commandments:
love God, love your neighbor, is a sin.
Anything I do that is not from love is a sin.
The same action can be a sin sometimes and not a sin sometimes.
I could yell at my kids as discipline, all the time loving them,
considering only to teach them proper behavior, or I could yell at my
kids out of anger or selfishness.
I could post an excellent article because I am interested in sharing
my opinions and getting feedback and learning, or I could post an
article because I want everyone to realize how wise I am. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
20newsgroups Demo
This 20 newgroups dataset is a filtered version containing only the "atheism.alt" and "soc.religion.christian". It is based on the SetFit/20_newsgroups dataset. This dataset is used for our workshops at the AI Maker Community, a project sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany.
Original Dataset
This is a version of the 20 newsgroups dataset that is provided in Scikit-learn. From the Scikit-learn docs:
The 20 newsgroups dataset comprises around 18000 newsgroups posts on 20 topics split in two subsets: one for training (or development) and the other one for testing (or for performance evaluation). The split between the train and test set is based upon a messages posted before and after a specific date.
We followed the recommended practice to remove headers, signature blocks, and quotations from each news article.
- Downloads last month
- 37